Ways of thinking and not thinking: the world of policy commentators

We are entering a period of intense transition processes globally, necessitating the phasing out of fossil fuels. Implementation needs to be fast-tracked but this will not be without friction. Commentary on the nature of these transition processes often does not draw sufficiently from insider experience, with commentators trying to guess what is going on on the inside. Such poor and uninformed commentary is ultimately unhelpful.

As it stands, commentators often try to outdo one another, feverishly commenting on everything under the sun, even in areas where the commentators do not have sufficient knowledge to offer meaningful ‘advice’.

Commentators that engage in lazy intellectualism reveal a shallowness of analysis. Commentary that is based on serious scholarship, real work and ground truthing with people on the coalface of practice – those willing to take on risks others would avoid – deserves respect, unlike loose or disingenuous commentary.

How is it possible to comment intelligently on something you have not done yourself? Is it based on tacit knowledge, wisdom from previous experiences or merely commentators’ gossip?

Commentators can relegate themselves to being armchair critics and engaging in activism through rhetoric – which involves dishing out catchphrases and complaints largely within their own circles of mutual admiration and assurance.

Having grown up in fierce debating circles among Marxists and others – both leftist and non-leftist – you appreciate real critique over media soundbites.

The thing about being in the process of change, where you have a mandate to do so, is that the world of ideas and practical realities are two different things. There is also a difference between observing while actively engaging and observing without doing anything.

And, be mindful of the politicians’ promises: do not say things you cannot deliver.

We see this countless times with politicians who lack experience in implementing policy making populist promises but ending up not being able to fulfil what they promise the electorate.

It is not because they are liars (well, some are, actually) or bluffers; rather, many have not anticipated the challenges of wielding power in the real world – where power often moves counter to their desires.

This is evident in the nature of new technology transitions that must unseat incumbent technologies and existing forms of energy dependence: everything revolves around the politics of change – not just technology cost curves.

As Swedish economic geographer Brett Christopher has noted in his seminal book, The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet, an inordinate focus on cost curves tends to tell the wrong story about how fast or slow a technology transition process will take. Proponents of renewables contend they are cheap. However, Christopher argues that this narrative is nuanced – it’s both true and false.

The Price is Wrong illustrates that this is not the full picture and that we must be mindful that we are still in a capitalist world where the long-term viability of financing projects is dependent on the rate of return, compared with other investments that providers of equity or debt can get. Christopher’s arguments turn the cheap price logic on its head: it is current and future, expected profits that determine whether investors will be interested in financing renewable- energy projects.

Commentators’ discourses vary. The first type judges on the basis of forms of framing that do not come from tacit knowledge, offering commentary for the sake of commentary. Walter Lippmann once referred to this as building opinion on the basis of stereotypes, often slipping into the practice of propaganda.

The second often lies in the absence of commentary from the doers themselves, who spend little time countering misinterpretations and misrepresentations by commentators. This lack of response emboldens commentators to take significant liberties in saying things without being held accountable for their statements.

We should be particularly wary of deliberate negative narratives aimed at obfuscation and distraction, as well as unethical commentary, such as misinformation campaigns.

Strategic disinformation commentary usually comes from opposing parties with no interest in progressing any process because success in alternative technologies threatens the existing energy political economy and special interests.

Then there are voices that matter. Their concerns have real validity, as anything new and with unknown risks can have both positive and negative externalities.

Some elements of this are to be seen in green hydrogen developments. Local activists, communities and workers have encountered promises of development dividends before – their scepticism is rooted in lived experience, not fictitious thought-experiments. Despite promises by developers and politicians seeking votes in the next election cycle, there is often little tangible progress to show.

Energy transition processes in the world are not going to proceed smoothly, as they are subject to complexities arising from diverse interests within and outside the State. Different visions and objectives will inevitably clash over what should and should not be implemented.

Where large-scale investments are involved, hidden interests always lurk beneath the public narrative, either for or against a cause.

The politics of transitions is not so much about whether we should not implement them or that some transitions are costly; it is really about the different public narratives that support or oppose an idea. Ultimately, it is not so much that the opponents bother you.

We know about them. We know their storyline, but it is about those that should be supporting you that are inadvertently contributing to the scheme of the opponents to bring the whole edifice down. This will be the collateral damage of their negative aspersions.