X Close

The looming Democrat Civil War By pandering to both Wall Street and the Left, the party has forgotten its blue-collar base

Biden's honeymoon period is over. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Biden's honeymoon period is over. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


April 20, 2021   6 mins

The Democratic Party has always been a loose confederation of outsiders — poor farmers, union members, populists, European immigrants and southern segregationists. As the actor Will Rogers said in 1924: “I am not a member of any organised political party. I am a Democrat.” Yet despite being unwieldy, it was often effective, and usually beat the more homogeneous country-club-led Republicans.

Today, the Democratic Party seems more united, still glowing in the aftermath of the defeat of Trump. But that is just an illusion: Joe Biden’s first hundred days in office are almost up — and the internal conflicts of his party are bound to surface soon.

These divisions are not petty, or merely personal, but based on demands from a number of incompatible constituencies and ideologies. Take the Democrats’s newest supporters: America’s tech oligarchs, Wall Street financiers and urban real estate speculators. They may act “woke” on issues surrounding gender, race and the environment. But such “virtue signalling” is no substitute for the drastic policies pushed by the party’s Left: the confiscation of vast wealth, the break-up of monopolies and the introduction of ever-higher taxes. Big business, after all, is the clear winner in the status quo that the Left, with good reason, despises.

But the impending Democratic civil war is more than, as some conservatives see it, a two-dimensional conflict between “the establishment and the radicals”. Largely ignored in this narrative is the most unappreciated, least articulate yet arguably the largest Democrat-voting bloc: middle and working-class moderates who make up roughly 50% of the party. These voters may often favour populist economics, but remain threatened by the cultural, economic and environmental policies pushed by the other two factions.

All of which leaves Biden in an unenviable position: if he seeks to placate both the corporate woke and the activist Left, the Democrats could sever their last connections with the vast majority of the country, and allow the GOP, even in the wake of the Trump disaster, to recover political momentum.

For what it’s worth, Biden has often been associated with this largely neglected group of what might be called FDR Democrats. His reputation as a moderate “reasonable guy” helped secure the votes of older Democrats, Independents and African-Americans in the recent election. In the primaries, it gave him an edge over both the radical Sanders, whose program frightened many older voters, and the candidates of the corporate elite, notably the well-financed former Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg. These voters may be fading in the numbers, but still constitute up to 44% of the total electorate, easily the largest identifiable class constituency.

Certainly, parts of Biden’s program — expanding health coverage as well as investments in basic infrastructure and manufacturing — could appeal to these voters, who are now generally supportive of an activist government. But Biden has also backed measures on cultural and environmental issues that are unlikely to win over the traditional working and middle classes. For example, fracking bans, already endorsed by Vice President Harris, could, according to the US Chamber of Commerce, cost 14 million jobs, far more than the eight million lost in the Great Recession.

Belying his regular guy image, Biden has also expressed support for programmes that would force suburban areas to densify. It is likely few suburbanites, the majority of all Americans, would welcome federal overseers deciding how their communities should be changed. Meanwhile, attempts to force residents out of their cars and into transit, something they were abandoning well before Covid, seems quixotic as well as politically stupid. The President’s Transportation Secretary has even suggested a tax on “vehicle miles” travelled, a measure almost calculated to alienate middle and working-class families outside a few dense urban cores.

And then there’s the Biden cultural agenda, built largely around critical race theory. It would, in effect, force the majority of Americans, particularly Asians, to accept permanent race discrimination in terms of access to jobs, college educations and entrance to competitive high schools. Moreover, its timing could hardly be worse: it galls many to see, amid a pandemic and deep recession, a sudden huge surge of refugees at the border. Even Hispanics in some border states, whose politics tend align with grassroots working-class interests, see this new wave of immigration as a direct threat to their constituents’s  personal and economic safety.

How did their interests fall so out of favour? Well, their waning influence is principally the result of a merging of wealth and corporate power in Democrat politics that has been building for at least fifteen years, blossoming richly under President Obama. Both Biden’s primary campaign last year and his election victory were financed largely by big Wall Street firms, tech oligarchies, the mainstream media and other wealthy elites. Vice President Harris, in particular, is close to America’s new oligarchy, notably Facebook, while National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has close ties to Microsoft.

Biden has already delivered on one of tech’s biggest concerns: the restoration of HIB tech workers — essentially, relatively cheap short-time servants from Asia. The Bay Area economy, for example, depends on for as much as 40% of its workforce from non-citizens. It’s no surprise that the travel ban and Trump’s often crude policies on immigration helped transform Silicon Valley  into a virtually one-party state .

But this corporate Leftism extends well beyond Silicon Valley. Where the Democrats once ruled mining and manufacturing towns; today they represent 41 of the 50 wealthiest Congressional districts. Wall Street and the tech oligarchy can afford not to see Biden’s “green agenda” as raising living costs or threatening jobs. Instead, Valley oligarchs and Wall Street financiers salivate over the potential killing to be made from subsidies for their renewable fuels investments and electric car schemes, as the radical filmmaker Michael Moore, among others, has documented. The green economy has already spawned its first mega-billionaire, Elon Musk, whose core businesses feed largely on regulatory and tax policies that favour his products.

All of which grates somewhat with the third Democrat faction: the illiberal neo-socialist Left. People like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez rail against the extreme inequality associated with Silicon Valley and Wall Street. AOC has even suggested a country that “allows billionaires to exist” is immoral.

But while this inevitable conflict is yet to achieve centre-stage in Washington, it is surely only a matter of time before it erupts. Already in Seattle, local progressives have been feuding with Amazon, the city’s mega-employer whose founder, Jeff Bezos, is a Democratic ideological enforcer (through control of the Washington Post and the book industry) and donor to Biden. Meanwhile, San Francisco has also passed legislation to confiscate some of the wealth of its huge tech elite.

Ultimately, it won’t be easy for Democrats to accommodate both the world’s most avaricious capitalists and grassroots radicals. These agenda-setting Leftists are openly hostile to free enterprise system. Indeed, the recent bitter fight in Nevada, where insurgent socialists won all five party leadership positions in the local party, will likely be replicated around the country.

In contrast, the GOP, once the country-club party, does not ignore the sentiments of the unwashed —  white working class voters, small business owners and, to a surprising degree, minorities such as Latinos, whose economic interests, aspirations and social views are often at odds with the Democrat’s new “progressive” agenda. Today, you often hear more interesting social democratic ideas about boosting the middle class and curbing the oligarchy  from the conservative intelligentsia and GOP Senators like Florida’s Marco Rubio.

Yes, these proposals are often detested by libertarians and the last vestiges of traditional corporate conservatism, but there’s not much clamour in the electorate for a return for the Bushes or Mitt Romney. The populist wing of the Right has identified patriotism, homeownership, small business and upward mobility at its core — ideas which are largely ignored or even demonised by the Democrats’ dominant factions.

As their traditional constituency shifts, Democrats will struggle to maintain their odd coupling of the woke and the ultra-rich. They could try to square the circle by devising a more regulated economy that would curb competition — always manna for the monopolists — while dishing out more welfare and subsidies to allay the potentially disruptive masses.

But this trick, particularly as the bond markets and foreign investors begin to recoil from massive deficits, may ignite a battle over raising taxes, which would force the party to go after the tech monopolies, who historically pay little. It could also force them to increase levies on its cadre of educated upper-class adherents.

In the meantime, however, the contradictions between socialism and even woke capitalism may prove too massive to reconcile. It seems certain that far-Left candidates will continue to challenge and replace old FDR-style Democrats, particularly in big cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, St. Louis and Seattle.

Growing pressure from the Left, and also from the financial markets, could undermine Biden’s brief kumbaya moment, forcing him to choose between the interests of his elite and grassroots supporters. A Democratic Civil War seems inevitable — and in such a scenario, the winner will only be the Republicans.


Joel Kotkin is the Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and author, most recently, of The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class (Encounter)

joelkotkin

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

127 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
3 years ago

A very interesting article providing hope that the democrats’ current lock on power might soon wane through internal strife. It’s certainly worth bearing in mind that the improbable coalition of the woke left, big corporations, and the ageing middle class was only possible as a reaction to Trump and fueled by the effects on a once-in-a century pandemic. As life gradually returns to normal (hopefully) we’ll see how that coalition holds up.
My money is on the tech elites retaining control of the democratic party agenda. Why? Because big tech holds the power of censorship. They can shape the news any way they want, and that’s exactly what they did to unseat Trump.
I’d love to see the democrats get a shellacking in the mid-terms, but that’s almost two years away–several lifetimes in politics.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Is it possible to defeat ‘big tech’? Other behemoths have fallen, but it takes time, time that we don’t really have.

David Owsley
David Owsley
3 years ago

coordinated drone strikes of the servers and back-ups would do it.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  David Owsley

Excellent idea, thank you.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  David Owsley

I think if you go through the physical and digital trash in these big tech outfits there will be a lot of corruption and drugs as well as the usual misogeny & racism associated with nerds and modern lefties. They can then be hit with anti-trust at the top and RICO at the bottom and middle. That way their servers etc can be siezed and re-deployed for peaceful and socially beneficial purposes.

Francis MacGabhann
Francis MacGabhann
3 years ago

That’s one way of looking at it. Here’s another. The Democrats were ALWAYS crooks and chancers. It was baked into the party’s recipe from the day Andrew Jackson founded it. It was always about elites — in Jackson’s day, slave owners — harnessing the masses like plough horses to advance their own agenda. That’s why every single Jim Crow law ever passed in the US was passed by Democratic legislatures and governors. It’s why they were able to switch over to the whole civil rights thing in the sixties with effortless ease, because by then, THAT was the pony to bet on. Either way, there wasn’t a principle to be found anywhere in the Democratic Party and there still isn’t today.
The author is right about one thing. It won’t be easy to accommodate greedy capitalists and insane leftists in the same space. It’ll be impossible, and that’s a good thing. It means the Democrats will either have to make a decision and actually stand for something instead of trying to cynically gather the greatest number into a tent so wide no tent poles can support it, or else they’ll collapse. I hope it’s the latter because the world will be a better place without these cynical grifters.
Don’t misunderstand. At one time I automatically defaulted to the Democrats and felt the world was better when they were in power. Not any more. The change occurred when I realized that there are only so many “mistakes” people can make before you just have to stop treating them as honest but fallible and start understanding that they’re actually bad guys. I crossed that line of understanding after the rise of Trump. When somebody as crass as Donald Trump kicks in your door, you have to start accepting that the timbers of your house are absolutely rotten.

Last edited 3 years ago by Francis MacGabhann
Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

The change occurred when I realized that there are only so many “mistakes” people can make before you just have to stop treating them as honest but fallible and start understanding that they’re actually bad guys.
There it is. Once may be a mistake and twice can be a coincidence. Three times and more is a habit. When actions have foreseeable consequences, the only rational answer is that the consequences were intentional.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago

TBH i expect the Dems will simply pay off the insane leftists with money donated by the greedy capitalists. I’ve seen a few lefties who walk the walk – Corbyn in UK being an obvious example, but most are in it for the adulation and the money, without both they’d be doing something else – loan sharking most likely.

D Ward
D Ward
3 years ago
Reply to  mike otter

Corbin the multi-millionaire you mean?

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  D Ward

Growing your own veg saves you a lot of money

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
3 years ago

Well written Francis… much resonates especially the last paragraph.

Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago

It is naive to think that the Democrats are held together by policy; they are held together by “performative politics.” Virtue-signalling is their strongest common bond; most voters have no idea of the details of the policies, only that they sound good. If/when the big tech firms realize that they are paying high taxes to ‘share the wealth’, they will use their power to modify the policy agenda. This could well drive away many of the radicals, but as long as they package the messages properly by abusing the English language, they could hold together. Much of the language abuse is essentially Orwell’s Newspeak. When words are violence, every word is criminal.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

Largely ignored in this narrative is the most unappreciated, least articulate yet arguably the largest Democrat-voting bloc: middle and working-class moderates who make up roughly 50% of the party.
40 years ago, that group became known as Reagan Dems. More recently, they were a focal part of Trump’s support. And I don’t the Dems ignore this group; they largely hold it in contempt. These people are not the activist class, they don’t lose their minds over “only women have periods,” and they’re not fans of doxxing and silencing opposing views.
The left has reached the foreseeable consequence of its relentless devotion to victimhood and group identity – the point where the various constituencies begin to cross swords. You cannot support trans rights AND women’s rights; those two things are fundamentally at odds. Same with gay rights, unless one truly believes that a gay man is a bigot for not wanting a relationship with a bio woman. And there is the race part, which the party will never, ever let go of until blacks figure that decades of one-party devotion has left them, in many cases, worse off.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

In the late 70s i saw a cartoon strip, might’ve been Gilbert Shelton, which featured two competing pressure groups, Child Molesters Against the Nazis and Disturbed and Violent People Against Practically Everybody. I’ll leave the readers to decide which is US Dems and which UK Labour.

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
3 years ago

“GOP, even in the wake of the Trump disaster,”

Uh, wha? What a perplexing assertion, at least from someone who ostensibly isn’t watching CNN.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Cho Jinn

Exactly. I like Joel and have watched various interviews etc with him in recent months. And this article provides a decent overview of the situation as I understand it. But to describe Trump as a ‘disaster’ is just a lie. He delivered on more of his promises than any leader since Thatcher, and won millions more votes in 2020 than he did in 2021. Ironically, the only group among whom he lost votes was white middle class men, who will see their suburbs invaded by the underclass if Biden has his way. Good. They voted for it.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

I wonder how you’d feel about someone describing the people who forcibly entered The Capitol on Jan 6 as an “underclass”.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Those who invaded the Capitol are, effectively, an ‘underclass’, certainly in the eyes of the Democrats. The difference is that most or all of them were people who work. Biden plans to populate the suburbs with those on welfare etc.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Can you share the link to Biden stating he plans to populate the suburbs with those on welfare?

Ray Zacek
Ray Zacek
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Research author Stanly Kurtz on the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule” (AFFH)

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Would Peasants be better?
It has pleasing historical associations you must admit.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Has anyone been ‘charged’ with the murder of Ms Alisha Babbitt yet?
If not, why not?

Ray Zacek
Ray Zacek
3 years ago

No, and no charges will be filed, nor will the shooter be identified. Some lives matter more than others. A white female Trump supporter, and a Capitol Hill cop who died of a stroke and not of injuries sustained on January 6, rank low and will be omitted from media reporting.

Last edited 3 years ago by Ray Zacek
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Ray Zacek

What an absolute disgrace! It makes a complete mockery of so-called US Justice. Over here (UK) we call that “getting away with blue murder”.

I originally thought Ms Babbitt had been shot by panicky, young policeman who was terrified out of his whits. A ‘reflex’ shot rather reminiscent of a gun slinger if you like.

However on studying the videos it is quite clear that he takes a premeditated shot allowing about four to five seconds to adjust his aim before firing at almost point blank range.

Clearly he is guilty of premeditated murder and should be charged and executed accordingly (preferably by electrocution, if you still ‘do’ that), but after the obligatory stretch of 15 years on death row to allow his Lawyers to ‘earn a crust’.

The fact he has been granted anonymity as well makes this one of the most appalling incidents in the short history of the United
States, and perhaps the worst since they ‘exiled’
Thomas Paine.

Presumably Ms Babbitt’s relations can mount a Civil Action, or will the fabled
“Land of the Free” also prohibit that?

Last edited 3 years ago by Charles Stanhope
Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
3 years ago

The dual system of justice is working perfectly in the case of Babbitt. And the officer was a senior person. At least he hasn’t won some award for his bold action to protect Congress – at least not publically. He must live with himself after his actions.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

How, if I may ask Sir, is “the system of justice” working perfectly?
In this funny little rain swept island (UK) it appears to be an abomination!

Last edited 3 years ago by Charles Stanhope
Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
3 years ago

Black cops shooting unarmed white women is allowed but not the opposite. And Capital riots are much more important than riots in the hinterland. So the FBI will do extraordinary investigation for one but not for the other.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

That’s terrible, and I have always thought that ‘we’ (UK) were not ‘squeaky clean’, but ‘you’ have taken it to another level.
You will have get your great Republic back! The World needs it.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago

No and there won’t be. This person has not been identified and has been given a ‘pass’. There oughta’ be a law – they owe the public an answer.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Yes totally agreed.

It is an absolute disgrace that the killer has been given both immunity and anonymity.
Perhaps it is because he is Black? (the video evidence clearly shows black hands on the automatic)

So no justice for Ms Ashli Babbitt and no eulogy from the loathsome Nancy Pelosi and that moron Biden, and no $27 million.

It makes a total of mockery US Justice and leaves a stench that will last for years unless it is speedily resolved.

Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

May or may not be right, but a lot of sensible small-c conservatives wouldn’t support Trump – for whatever reason. If Trump had – or his successor can – bring them back on board, the GOP will do well.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Terrell

I hope they make a big effort to get a more electable offering for 2024. I knew nothing of Trump before he was nominated but the media monstering was so weird that i read up on him. He is clearly able to form long and effective business relationships and some personal ones. He is, however, stronger meat than the average independent voter can stomach, and that needs to be considered now dem rats are, like UK labor, an actual danger to society.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Terrell

RINOs

John Lewis
John Lewis
3 years ago

The Democrats disdain for their blue-collar working class base is only equalled by UK Labours similar lurch towards appeasing each and every minority and pressure group.

Unlike Labour though the Dems now seem to have mastered how to win elections without such voters.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  John Lewis

They didn’t need voters to win 2020, just pliant counting machine makers and useful idiots like Suckberg to lean in.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  mike otter

However if you lose enough support among your natural supporters you start to have problems. Biden has announced that he is praying the jury reach the ‘right’ verdict of guilty-so totally impartial there.I wonder what legal people think of democrat interference in this case? Democrats/liberals (which includes most of the entertainment business) do like to portray themselves on TV and film as criminals and chancers -but in a humerous heart of gold sort of way-who ultimately know what is right.The ‘baddie’ is usually a right-wing cold big business type-well now they are the ones in charge and are big business themselves.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
3 years ago

A civil war is imminent in the Labour Party too – right after Hartlepool I reckon. A double header then. Looking forward to it.

Paul N
Paul N
3 years ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Interesting times. It will be harder to blame any loss in support this time on being too far to the left economically, or even on Bexit. Maybe “because Starmer”, or “because socially liberal”?
Then again, they could win.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul N

The various Labour factions have never found it difficult to blame each other, regardless of how distant from reality the reasons invented for failing. What they find really difficult is both: uniting once one faction wins out, and ditching quickly a strategy or leadership that is patently failing.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

I hope you are right, but Boris has a lot in common with Trump and its probable Labour are vote harvesting, using Bridari and a lot more besides. Trump sat and watched that happen, Boris will likely do the same.

Mark Preston
Mark Preston
3 years ago

The Democrats are supported by the gay lobby, the black lobby and the muslim lobby but some of those groups are intolerant of the others. At some point the democrats, like the left everywhere will have to work out which group they’ll throw under the bus. It’s inevitable and when it happens it’ll blow the apart.

Mike Boosh
Mike Boosh
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Preston

Unfortunately for the dems and labour there aren’t enough gay black Muslims to square that circle.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

It’s not the gay ones we have to worry about , but rather those, (to use the vernacular), who are “bonking like bunnies”.
Given their fecundity we have a major problem ahead.

Mike Boosh
Mike Boosh
3 years ago

Quite… Which suggests that the gays will probably lose their privileged victim status in future… And ironically are more likely to become actual victims in the future caliphate that their “allies” seem intent on bringing about.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

“Every cloud has a silver lining”.

Mark Preston
Mark Preston
3 years ago

The gays will be thrown under the bus because they’re less numerous than the other group and the other group also has no problem using violence to get their own way.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Preston

to an extent, this is already happening with the feminists joining the gays as the left fully embraces that minority of minorities, the trans crowd. When a gay man is deemed phobic for not wanting to date a bio woman, the train has jumped the tracks. Same with the pearl-clutching over some radical thought as “only women get pregnant.” The left created its monster of intersectionality and Frankenstein is slowly turning on his master.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

In this case the monster/creator confusion is relevant, as the left is truly like a mad scientist brought down by their own crazed schemes.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Preston

Probably more likely to be thrown from high buildings….also bear in mind labor UK and US Dems claim there is no such thing as women. There is no limit to their mendacity. I expect even the bad actors/dictators of past ages would be gobsmacked if they saw labour/dems today.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Preston

re: consituencies…the Democrats shouldn’t be too sure of themselves. The gay couple next door voted Trump because of their portfolio; they said Trump would be better for it. My Ecuadoran housecleaner said she was voting Trump because she actually liked his strict immigration policies. It’s just a snap shot but the Dems don’t have it ‘in-the-bag’ as much as they think. Moreover, the wokies and political correctness is driving many away as well, as it’s making life intolerable.

Colin Haller
Colin Haller
3 years ago

This is an important topic, and one that certainly deserves better than the confused mish-mash of quasi-related ideas served up by Kotkin.
Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology” analyzes the abandonment of the working class constituency by the former “parties of labor” in the West (US Democrats; UK Labour; continental Social Democratic parties) in favor of educated, urban elites. This process is much older than Obama, pace Kotkin.
There is already a reaction among their political opponents — think of Johnson’s “f*ck business” line. Someone is going to pick up the working and middle class votes that have been left lying around by the former “parties of labour” — in fact, it’s already happening.
The only question remaining is whether or not it will result in concrete material benefits for those working and middle class voters. Sadly, Gilens and Page’s 2014 study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” isn’t terribly hopeful, demonstrating as it does how political parties invariably favor the interests of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  Colin Haller

A most insightful, balanced comment. Sadly a rarity on UnHerd.

Ceelly Hay
Ceelly Hay
3 years ago

Interesting, this was the deliberate strategy of the Australian Labor prime minister Bob Hawk in the ’80s. Ignore the safe voters, i.e. the Australian working class and target the swinging voters back then, the professional class. The British Labor leader, later prime minister Tony Blair, adopted the same strategy. The Australian Labor party is an absolute mess as their main voting base, the working class, no longer solidly vote for Labor. I always wondered if the American Democrats had implemented this strategy as well?

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Ceelly Hay

The US Democrats implemented this strategy in 1993 with NAFTA and various other measures taken by the Clintons.

Greg Greg
Greg Greg
3 years ago

The base of the GOP has become the middle and lower middle class while the base of the Dems has become the upper class, cocktail-after-dinner crowd. What’s more, history is full of irony. Look for the Latino vote to migrate toward the GOP in increasing numbers…..that is, so long as the GOP doesn’t listen to their inside the beltway $500/hr consultants when they suggest that a tanned, immaculately dressed, hair dried, programmed, Ivy Leaguer who drives a Land Rover and who speaks in statistics, will prove appealing.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago

Kotkin is brilliant. I wonder though if Biden will remain beyond his kumbaya moment. Harris may well take over as un-elected president. That in turn might just tip America over the edge.

jadonlon
jadonlon
3 years ago

I live in Chicago and couldn’t have said it better, you summed up the situation in the US perfectly.

Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago

Ironically the cures the Dems propose are racist.

Craig Brown
Craig Brown
3 years ago

Biden did this. Biden did that. The author maintains the fiction that Biden is in charge and directing policy.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  Craig Brown

Biden is the ‘puppet presidency’.

David Owsley
David Owsley
3 years ago

Very good. I have followed US politics for a lot longer, travelling extensively there since the 70s but in the noughties especially. It amazes me how if you follow the BBC for US news you would have had absolutely no idea at all what was going on. In 2008 before Obama took office the coverage by ALL US media (and obviously UK too) was pathetic; the clearest and fairest non partisan interviews and programmes came from FOX, not right-slanted at all but fair to both sides.
Your last paragraph is outstanding.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
3 years ago

So, long story short, the US Democrats are going the way of UK Labour.

Waldo Warbler
Waldo Warbler
3 years ago

I find most trans-Atlantic political analyses to be fruitless. These are very different countries with radically different political systems, and surprisingly deep cultural differences. Yet, the Democrats seem to be making exactly the same error that Labour has made here.
One major difference between the two realms is the impact of “tech.” The disgraceful and censorious behaviour of twitter and FB has less effect in the UK.
The left seem to struggle to learn (hence their routing in the UK recently) and often seem to forget that when they behave badly, the other side learns faster and behaves worse. Biden’s (handlers’) lunatic court-packing ideas are a case in point. Do, this and the Republicans will do exactly the same next time they are in power, and use it to do really dangerous things.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago

Similar to UK left wingers, they have no policies to offer, just “feelings” and “their truths”. These are broadly: prejudice based on skin color, hatred and envy, propagating violence against people and property plus contempt for American values, particularly the family. So not really a political movement and certainly not “Democrats” that FDR or even Bill Clinton would recognise. Unless the voting system is completely reformed they will be hard to dislodge. If you believe in the “feelings” listed above you certainly have no compuction about electoral fraud. This may be “vote harvesting” or simply chucking ballot boxes away if the contents are “wrong”.It is far more likely such a political movement will be hit from outside the domestic system. China, Russia, Israel and KSA have the means, all they need is the motivation.

Hugh R
Hugh R
3 years ago

All sounds very familiar, somehow.

nathaniel.tensen.24
nathaniel.tensen.24
3 years ago

Typical intellectual dishonesty from Kotkin (always amusing how much he’s bought the lie that Republicans are the working class party now). He claims that Jeff Bezos is an ‘ideological enforcer’ for the Democrats and a donor to Biden. The link he provides sends you to an article that doesn’t state that (it instead notes that employees at Amazon and some of the leadership were supporters, not that Bezos is).

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago

If the author was an investor rather than an ideologue, he would know the global economy is decarbonising and that is where the wealth is being created. Cost of capital of fossil fuels is sky high. Oil and gas sector facing trillions of dollars of stranded assets. The writing is on the wall. Trump ignored reality as the rest of the world made money inventing and patenting new renewable energy technologies and deploying at scale. Which US party is facing reality and at least trying to help achieve a just transition for fossil fuel workers?

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Ah, yes – those green jobs I was hearing so much about…

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  Cho Jinn

As opposed to all those coal jobs? Or the crappy short term fracking and pipeline jobs that typically last less than a year? Be realistic. Why subsidise jobs in fossil fuel sector (yes, fossil fuels are 10x+ more subsidised than renewables) rather than investing in these people doing something that isn’t economically doomed?

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

It is just wishful thinking to believe that the global economy is decarbonising. Europe is making noises about it. The USA is a long, long way behind and will wait to see what is happening everywhere else. Is China decarbonising? What about the battle in the Med between Turkey and Greece over carbon deposits which could keep the owner rich for 100 years?
Basically, the UK will decarbonise first and will become one of the poorest countries in the world. Anyone who can leave will leave. Good luck to all of the communes left behind! They can love themselves to death and make little Greta statues to worship.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Your comment is replete with factual inaccuracies. How does the rapid pace of the renewable energy transition in Texas, California or New York fit with your assessment?

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips had their credit ratings lowered after S&P Global Ratings followed through on its recent warning and revised the industry’s risk profile due to climate change and weak earnings.

The three oil and gas producers all had their ratings cut one notch, S&P said in separate statements, and comes two weeks after the ratings company published a sector-wide report on the challenges posed by climate change.

The ratings decisions reflect “growing risks from energy transition due to climate change and carbon/GHG emissions, weak industry profitability and greater expected volatility in hydrocarbon fundamentals,” S&P said Thursday.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-11/exxon-s-rating-lowered-by-one-notch-after-20-billion-loss

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

The USA id doing quite well in ‘decarbonzing’ without ineffective legislation.The markets are working.

Colin Macdonald
Colin Macdonald
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Perhaps you can can enlighten us as to what these subsidies are. If for instance oil production is subsidised where did Norway get it’s trillion Kroner sovereign wealth fund from? The Alaskan State government gives all residents a yearly dividend from oil revenues, no subsidy there! And although North Sea oil is a busted flush the UK government still gets ÂŁ35 billion annually from taxing fossil fuel powered transport. You’ve got it the wrong way round, fossil fuels subsidise government and by extension, renewables.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago

With respect, you seem not to understand that the existence of subsidies is entirely separate from the issue of how revenues/profits are allocated.
Here’s some further information on fossil fuel subsidies from the International Energy Agency:
https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies

Dave Tagge
Dave Tagge
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

It’s readily apparent from the link that most of those are measures such as subsidized prices to end users of gasoline and electricity in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago

And here’s some further information on subsidies for you, in addition to my link to the IEA:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/?sh=3afc11ef4473

United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education

Dave Tagge
Dave Tagge
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Dubious methodology. It comes up with huge numbers by looking at negative externalities such as air pollution, but it doesn’t appear to net positive externalities (consumer surplus) against those.

Colin Haller
Colin Haller
3 years ago
Reply to  Dave Tagge

“Consumer surplus” may not apply in case of goods which have substitutes. But thanks for playing.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

I doubt the global is decarbonising beyond a superficial show of virtue. China and India aren’t going to; not with ambitious, upwardly mobile populations to placate.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago

Tell it to all those Chinese who are buying electric cars.

Carl Goulding
Carl Goulding
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Which are charged using electricity generated by fossil fuelled fired Power stations!

Andrew Harvey
Andrew Harvey
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

You mean those Chinese electric cars powered by newly-built coal-burning electricity plants?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

so you’re in favor of the massive mining required for the minerals that go into those thousand pound batteries? How about the impact of their eventual disposal? You are trading something that may have harmful side effects for something with even worse effects. And have noticed how much fossil fuel is required for the construction of a single wind turbine?

James Rowlands
James Rowlands
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

They are buying petrol hybrids. (subsidised) Mainly to reduce street polution

Val Cox
Val Cox
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Subsidised by the American taxpayer.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  Val Cox

The American taxpayer is subsidising fossil fuels considerably more. See the Forbes and IEA links I’ve shared elsewhere in the comments.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago

However HMG is making simply preposterous virtue ridden statements on our behalf with no mandate for doing so.
Whilst ‘we’ indulge in self humiliation, the World laughs.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago

It looks like suicide by the west. But this is Biden’s big idea to peg China back with green tariffs and HMG has to play along. The irony is that China uses masses of fossil fuels to produce goods for western companies. So China made products will rise in price. Where that will lead is anyone’s guess. But it’s unlikely to be a simple case of companies relocating their factories from China.

Ray Zacek
Ray Zacek
3 years ago

Joe Biden never had a Big Idea in his life. I have no good idea who is actually running the federal government, but I strongly strongly strongly doubt it’s either Biden the senile hack or odious Harris.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago
Reply to  Ray Zacek

That’s true. Nonetheless, whoever it is wrote this on his behalf:
Stop China from subsidizing coal exports and outsourcing carbon pollution. China is far and away the largest emitter of carbon in the world, and through its massive Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing is also annually financing billions of dollars of dirty fossil fuel energy projects across Asia and beyond. Biden will rally a united front of nations to hold China accountable to high environmental standards in its Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure projects, so that China can’t outsource pollution to other countries. Specifically, the U.S. will:

  • Make future bilateral U.S.-China agreements on carbon mitigation – like the 2014 agreement that paved the way for the Paris accord – contingent on China eliminating unjustified export subsidies for coal and other high-emissions technologies and making verifiable progress in reducing the carbon footprint of projects connected to the Belt and Road Initiative.

https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
3 years ago

And China will continue to smile nicely and laugh all the way to the bank. Meanwhile India will continue, like China, to build coal powered plants because the West has not created the modern nuclear reactors required for the green future.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

The West will either give up on green energy or give up the world to China.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

It looks like it has been given up & those that gave it up have done very nicely financially.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago

Thank you. I must admit that I am only selfishly concerned that from May I will no longer be able to buy bags of ‘real coal’ from my village shop!

However the concept that somehow HMG leads the way and the rest of the World gratefully follows is as arrogant as it is absurd.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago

There is a tinge of white supremacy to Environmentalism.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago

Agreed, completely delusional rubbish that is obligatory in Quislington, and associated Shrieker fiefdoms.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago

An interesting rant here:
ï»ż“Environmentalism is white supremacy. The wealthy, white, western, middle class protesting about climate change are doing so for two main reasons: to rid itself of the shame of its imperialist past and to hide a guilty secret about its future aims. Having held the highest position of social status in the world for 200 years, Environmentalism is their last attempt to maintain it in a world in which Europe and its legacy ruling class is fast becoming irrelevant.
Also almost irrelevant is the actual condition of the planet’s environment. Only a naĂŻve minority of environmentalists are genuinely worried and don’t realise the game being played. This is why the devious and cynical use of children is such a key strategy. Much like modern feminism with its main aim of maintaining the status of higher-class women and preventing lower-class women from rising in status, environmentalism’s main aim is to maintain the status of the same class and to prevent the lower classes around the world from rising.
This class is rightly defined as influential within the new leftism: the frayed strands of thought descended from the unravelling of socialist logic known as identity politics. Driven by the security and benefits of status, this class lives in its hypocritical quandary: at once enjoying the benefits of its historical rise and at once ashamed of its history of imperialism, racism, slavery and holocaust; afraid that its appeal for mercy to the rising global rivals will not be upheld, it seeks a moral authority to justify attempting to maintain its status.
It will fail, of course, and it will be ugly. It will fail because China, India, Russia, South America, the Middle East and Africa are no longer subservient to the white western race and will insist on at least equality of wealth, which will require hundreds of times more development than the world has ever seen. That will not be stopped either by wealthy, white westerners’ appeals for forgiveness nor this hypocritical attempt to maintain its status by denying others the same level of wealth.
Environmentalism will fail and its hysterical sense of moral superiority will twist it into the most grotesque tyranny in history, dwarfing by magnitudes the potential catastrophe of climate change.
https://www.physicaleconomics.org/about

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Can you share the link to ‘the global economy’ to show that it is decarbonising?

Paul N
Paul N
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

From the IEA website:

Driven by China and the United States, net installed renewable capacity will grow by nearly 4% globally in 2020, reaching almost 200 GW. Higher additions of wind and hydropower are taking global renewable capacity additions to a new record this year, accounting for almost 90% of the increase in total power capacity worldwide. Solar PV growth is expected to remain stable as a faster expansion of utility-scale projects compensates for the decline in rooftop additions resulting from individuals and companies reprioritising investments. 

Presumably forecasts for 2021 and figures for 2020 will be along in a bit.

Jos Haynes
Jos Haynes
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul N

Your response ignores the question. Global CO2 emissions are rising steadily – right up to 2019. They only fell in 2020 due to the Covid shut-down of the world economy. So much for the decarbonisation of the economy.
Policies to halt global warming and climate change are just pissing in the wind. It’s a common property problem and we, as a world, do not have the institutions to enforce a solution. Only a really serious pandemic which killed off a substantial percentage of the population would actually have any impact. And that would give us only a few years respite before stupid humanity resumed its destruction of the planet.

Paul N
Paul N
3 years ago
Reply to  Jos Haynes

You have a point – we need to deal with the huge emissions due to steel and concrete, as well as addressing the emissions from transport, farming, and all the things we hear about more frequently. The OECD had an interesting report on the subject, published in 2019, which looked at alternative techniques, and the barriers to adoption.

James Rowlands
James Rowlands
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul N

The barriers to adoption are that there is a limit to the amount you can tax the poor to pay rich people to make money off all these green “investments”.

Paul N
Paul N
3 years ago
Reply to  James Rowlands

It’s more that because of the low margins, the competitive market for these goods, and the lack of demand for more costly but “greener” concrete and steel, changes won’t happen without some sort of intervention. You’d need regulation (through tax incentives or otherwise) to move the market towards greener production, or you’d need lower demand (through design, or increased reuse, as appropriate – which might also benefit from governmental encouragement).

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Jos Haynes

HRH, the late Prince Philip, when asked about reincarnation annunciated the following:
He would like to return as a very malignant virus in order to control the world’s population.

Good man, a 60% reduction would be hugely beneficial, although personally I would prefer 75%!

julian rose
julian rose
3 years ago
Reply to  Jos Haynes

“killed off a substantial percentage of the population”…
Rubish my friend. The latest figures put 3 million deaths worldwide. Or, 0.035 of the 8 billion human beings in the planet right now. You call that a substantial percentage of the population? Whatever this is, itÂŽs not a pandemic.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  julian rose

No indeed, a mere ‘bee sting’……..sadly.

Jos Haynes
Jos Haynes
3 years ago
Reply to  julian rose

You completely miss my point, my “friend”. This so called pandemic is but a fleabite. The world needs a killer disease to see off a few billion polluting humans (though obviously I would prefer not to be one of them!).
BTW, I think you mean “rubbish” which is what your post is when you don’t understand the OP

Paul N
Paul N
3 years ago
Reply to  Jos Haynes

I’m not sure that a drop in population (unless of the order that would cause collapse of civilization) would reduce emissions enough. There might just be a higher proportion of the population “benefiting from” the same emissions and the goods and services they enable.
It might be better if as a race we could reduce our environmental impact, instead of pretending there isn’t a problem, or complaining that governments must not interfere in “The Market”.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Would like to know which renewables you mean. If it is wind and solar power, which are unreliable sources of energy, then Trump ignored it. Windmills are extremely expensive to build, having big concrete bases which can’t be removed after 25 years, when the windmills have to be recycled. Their blades have to be buried in special places as they are not recyclable. Solar panels have their own problems, as they don’t work in cold cloudy climate and so far their energy can’t be stored. Also the chemicals inside have to be deposed after their life span. All the mainstream politicians are now investing our hard earned money into useless energy sources, that’s why “wealth” is created out of thin air. The big corporation of course go with the flow as they get tax payer funded investment.

D Ward
D Ward
3 years ago

Also – won’t somebody think of the birds!

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  D Ward

The rspb has finally admitted ( years after David Bellamy told them so) that putting the equivalent of a giant food-mixer in the air isn’t good for flying things

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
3 years ago

And the inability to bring modern new nuclear reactors to neighborhoods is another issue. The R&D needed is stalled.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago

With respect Stephanie, wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels in developed energy markets such as the US and Europe. The lifespan of renewable projects is in the region of 25 years as you say, to be replaced by even more efficient and lower cost projects.
And also with respect, what you say about nacelles/blades not being recyclable is out of date (e.g. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ge-announces-first-us-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-program-with-veolia/591869/).
Moreover, we are talking about relative environmental costs; you cannot possibly argue that such costs of wind projects are higher to comparably sized fossil fuel projects.
Finally, as for the intermittency issue: battery and grid management technology, among others, is rapidly improving. This is not an insurmountable issue.
Meanwhile, it is fossil fuels getting 10x+ more in terms of government handouts/subsidies than renewable energy.

Jos Haynes
Jos Haynes
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

You don’t understand that WE are the problem. Nor that we don’t have a mechanism to do anything about it. Your “solutions” are ludicrous. Ever since the problem came to the world’s attention and green energy was introduced and targets for emissions reductions set, global CO2 emissions have continued to rise. Get real.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  Jos Haynes

You remind me of Giesecke a year ago saying that we wouldn’t get a vaccine.

Jos Haynes
Jos Haynes
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

You simply don’t understand the nature of the problem, do you? Simplistic and naive ideas from a simple and naive person.

James Barry
James Barry
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

What you fail to realize about the pipeline shutdown, is theUS will be a huge importer of Middle Eastern oil. California is the largest importer of oil in the US 60% from the Middle East. Google the California Energy Commission. That is because of pipelines from US sources cancelled for decarbonization reasons. The amount of carbon created by this importing makes CA one of the biggest carbon polluters in the world. Bad water policies and forestation policies caused wildfires to be hotter, burn longer and pollute more. CA is a huge CO2 creator. It is hidden by laws to show intent that really harm the economy more.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  James Barry

Not much use for oil in California if electric car ownership goes the same way as in Norway…

James Rowlands
James Rowlands
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Not decarbonising in China or India.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

As an investor, Exxon isn’t going anywhere soon. It will take a very long time to wean from fossil fuels, particularly the natural gas fueling power plants. Nuclear has a future but the public fear must be reduced as the newer reactor technology arrives. The long arc to better sustainability is progressing, rushing it by mandates will simply waste resources of the rich and tax the poor.

Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

How’s Exxon’s return doing compared with NextEra?
I agree with you on nuclear, btw. Natural gas plus carbon capture is part of the medium term energy mix for sure. But battery and grid management tech improving at pace, mitigating the renewables intermittency issue. I have less sympathy with your idea that policy is “rushing” the energy transition when fossil fuel subsidies remain sky high and cost of capital for clean energy is dirt cheap.

Last edited 3 years ago by Eva Rostova
Dave Tagge
Dave Tagge
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

“But battery and grid management tech improving at pace, mitigating the renewables intermittency issue”
You *vastly* underestimate the scale of this issue. There are some projects underway that can do things like store enough solar-generated electricity to make a meaningful impact on meeting a region’s early evening need for electricity or level out wind generation to demand within a 24-hour period.
For anything even beginning to approach a 100% renewables grid, however, there needs to be storage on a scale to cover weeks of low generation by solar and wind. People will sometimes discuss this in terms of metrics like annual monthly averages, or weather ranges over a limited time period, That drastically understates the reliability that people demand from electric generation.
Two months ago, however, Texas had its grid face a crisis – with many people without power for days – because not enough plants in the state were winterized against a roughly 1 in 80 years’ storm that led to simultaneous freezing temperatures across the state. The dominant view is that’s unacceptable as a political matter. At least in the case of natural gas, nuclear, and coal plants, there are well-understood engineering solutions. It costs money to winterize plants, but that’s routinely done in areas with colder weather.
Notice how areas currently deal with renewables intermittency? They either generate power from local fossil fuel-powered plants (mainly natural gas in the U.S.) that are excess during periods of high solar/wind production or import it from other places that have robust amounts of fossil fuel-generated electricity (as Germany and California routinely do).

Last edited 3 years ago by Dave Tagge
Eva Rostova
Eva Rostova
3 years ago
Reply to  Dave Tagge

I work in the energy sector, and I don’t vastly underestimate anything. I’m describing trends, which you are well aware of too, judging from the good level of knowledge you demonstrate in your comment. But by all means let’s have this discussion in 5 years time.

Dave Tagge
Dave Tagge
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Even those who work in a sector can underestimate what estimates truly entail and be highly overoptimistic about trends.
An estimate – by an advocate for wind and solar, no less – is that 100% wind and solar for the state of Texas would require ~7,000 GwH of battery storage (https://twitter.com/fredstaffordcs/status/1380218536526802946 ).
A very large battery storage project is what – about 1 GwH?
And we’re talking about storage just for state that’s < 10% of the U.S. population and <15% of U.S. energy consumption.
The cost would be massive, not least due to the scale of the raw materials/mining. To make that level of storage feasible, we’d need something on the order of what’s happened in the digital world with improvements in chips.
I don’t see signs that’s happening. Please point me to anything that shows we’re likely to see doubling after doubling of battery storage in a way that resembles the history of computer chips.

Last edited 3 years ago by Dave Tagge
Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  Eva Rostova

Trump didn’t ignore anything, especially common workers who voted for him. Why take away jobs in the short run from people who need the work just to virtue signal as did Biden by shutting down the pipeline? It made no sense. Yes, the markets are taking care of many things and making vast changes in pollution, conservation and ‘greenness’ etc. Markets do work, which is why Biden’s proposal to spend trillions of dollars on electronic charge-up stations and cars should be left to the private sector to solve. The Obama Administration spent $500 million of taxpayers money on the solar industry only to see it go belly up and the Chinese came in and bought the mess for pennies on the dollar. Government should not be in the business of forming and subsidizing businesses that the markets will and can address. Biden’s policies punish taxpayers by being inefficient and ineffective.

Last edited 3 years ago by Cathy Carron