What Just Happened to the Idea of Progress?

The morning after last week’s presidential election, I had to be up at 4 a.m. to drive my mother to the hospital for a surgery whose timing was not ideal.

While my colleagues wrote about the ramifications of the election (and did so really well), I spent much of the remainder of the week in an uncomfortable chair in a hospital room. I had a lot of time to think, including about whether my core belief in progress could withstand the onslaught of events.

In terms of the energy economy, progress means being confident that the energy transition will succeed, and, by extension, that the world is going to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

I went back to a 1991 book, “Technology, Theology, and the Idea of Progress” by David Hopper, who was a professor of religious studies at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, when I was a student there in the late 1990s. Hopper was near the end of his career then, and I’m not exaggerating when I say he possessed Yoda-like wisdom.

He believed in the idea of progress and viewed it as part of his religious faith. But he didn’t blindly accept progress in his writing. He engaged with the possibility that technology and human-caused disasters gave rise to doubts about whether the world was moving toward a state of greater happiness and justice.

“Day by day comes the realization that our blue, beautiful, cloud-flecked miracle in space is now haunted by death,” he wrote. “This is a situation in which we have all played a part, as we have indulged ourselves in our comforts and technological distractions.”

I can only imagine what Hopper, who died in 2020, would make of an election in which the United States picked a climate change denier to lead it at a time of record-setting heat. 

President-elect Donald Trump has said he wants to see a substantial increase in oil and gas production, even though the United States is already the global leader, and he wants to roll back regulations that require power plants and vehicles to reduce their emissions. Some of those actions will be subject to legal challenges, which could reduce the speed of implementation, but they are unlikely to face much resistance in a Republican-controlled Congress or the conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

A president who goes out of his way to worsen climate change can do a lot of damage. But there are forces beyond his control that will continue to buoy the energy transition.

For one, solar power is the least expensive source of electricity in most of the world. And the falling price of batteries means the global automotive market is approaching a point in which an EV will be less expensive than an equivalent gasoline vehicle. (My colleague Marianne Lavelle and I wrote last month about EV market dynamics, with an emphasis on how BYD, the Chinese automaker, is making inroads in Mexico.)

Both of the examples I cite are the result of technological advancement, which would make my former professor think I missed the point of his book.

Here’s a different frame for the argument: The affordability of carbon-free electricity is good for the world because it helps to displace the burning of fossil fuels, and that leads to cleaner air and water and a reduction in emissions that contribute to climate change. Also, the growth of solar power has a democratizing effect by giving people the ability to produce their own electricity. These steps can lead to greater happiness and justice.

I feel like this is in keeping with one of the final thoughts in Hopper’s book, which is that “the responsibility and joy of faith are set in this life.”

On Monday, I interviewed Katharine Hayhoe, the Texas Tech University scientist, and asked her how the election results fit into her view of the idea of progress. She has written often about how her faith informs her work on climate.

She said the idea of progress is definitely taking some hits, and the solution is to have hope that inspires action.

“I go out and I look for information about progress, and I share it with people,” she said. “When we go in and we look for it, it turns out it’s there.”

She takes inspiration from history. She recalled a moment a few years ago when the evidence of climate change was especially grim, and she happened to see an Instagram post showing a memorial to Thomas Fowell Buxton, a British member of Parliament who died in 1845. Buxton was a leader in the movement to abolish slavery and was part of the generation that helped to pass the 1833 law that banned slavery throughout the British Empire.

The abolition movement succeeded, but only after a long struggle. Many people saw little progress in their lifetimes.

“It reminded me of how often humans have fought for a better future,” Hayhoe said.

Where does my idea of progress stand?

The glib answer: Ask me again in four years.

The serious answer: The energy transition can be slowed, but it can’t be stopped. Considering the urgency of climate change, any slowing is a problem, but I remain confident that people will figure this out, even if progress isn’t a straight line.

Other stories about the energy transition to take note of this week:

Biden Plan Would Produce Huge Boost for Nuclear Power: The Biden administration has released a framework to expand nuclear power that sets a target of building 200 gigawatts of new nuclear power plants by 2050, as Andrew Freedman reports for Axios. This would more than triple current nuclear capacity. But considering the challenges of building just one new nuclear plant, it’s not clear how the country would be able to meet this goal. The administration’s most immediate target in the framework is to build 15 gigawatts of new nuclear plants by 2035.

After Trump Win, It’s Up to States to Lead on Climate Action: States took responsibility for fighting climate change during the first Trump administration, and now they need to redouble the work during the second. This was the message that Caroline Spears, executive director of Climate Cabinet, gave to state lawmakers following Trump’s win, as Jeff St. John reports for Canary Media. What’s not yet clear is which states have the right sets of elected officials to be able to pass the kinds of legislation needed.

Trump Could Oversee an EV ‘Battery Boom’—or Bust: President-elect Donald Trump has attacked what he refers to as EV “mandates,” but it’s far from clear what the totality of his deregulatory actions will do to the EV supply chain, as Hannah Northey, Mike Lee and David Ferris report for E&E News. Trump is likely to speed up permitting for new mines, which would increase the supply of material for EV batteries. But that won’t matter much if he is also taking actions that stifle the growth of EV sales, such as getting rid of tax credits for manufacturers that make the vehicles and for consumers who buy them.

Trump Has Vowed to Kill US Offshore Wind Projects. Will He Succeed? President-elect Donald Trump may have a difficult time killing off the U.S. offshore wind industry, despite his well-known antipathy for it, as Wayne Parry reports for The Associated Press. There are about 65 gigawatts of offshore wind projects in various stages of development in the United States. Projects that already have federal permits are in less danger from an incoming Trump administration. Also, market forces that support the development of offshore wind are not going to go away. That said, Trump can appoint people to regulatory agencies who are hostile to offshore wind, and he can take steps to reverse Biden administration goals for developing this resource.

Multi-State Offshore Wind Pact Weakened After Connecticut Sits Out First Selection: The first and only U.S. multi-state agreement to buy offshore wind power is under strain after one of its members declined to participate in the recent selection of developers for three projects off the coast of New England, as Jon Hurdle reports for ICN. The agreement is between Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, but Connecticut didn’t take a role in the selection of developers when procurements were announced in September. The state hasn’t specified why it decided to sit this one out, which is worrying to renewable energy advocates who view the three-state partnership as an important part of offshore wind development in the region.

Inside Clean Energy is ICN’s weekly bulletin of news and analysis about the energy transition. Send news tips and questions to [email protected].