A landslide of 2%…

In 2020, Joe Biden won the US presidential election with a margin of 306 to 232 in the Electoral College. More than 81 million people voted for him and his running mate, Kamala Harris, and they secured 4.5% more of the popular vote (and 7 million more votes) than did Donald Trump and whoever his running mate was that year (I dare you to remember). I do not recall anyone declaring it a landslide victory for Biden, and the general feeling was that he’d won by the narrowest of margins, setting aside the fact that Trump refused to acknowledge Biden’s victory.

In 2024, with 97% of the national vote tallied, Donald Trump won the US presidential election with a margin of 312 to 226 in the Electoral College. Assuming that roughly half of the 3% of the vote that remains to be counted went for Trump (perhaps generous, given that Blue states seem to be mostly left counting), then roughly 78 million people voted for him and his running mate J.D. Vance, and they secured ~ 2% more of the popular vote (and what should be roughly 3 million more votes) than did Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Many commentators, including many on the left, have declared it a landslide victory; decisive; a commanding mandate.

What the hell is wrong with us?!

I posit that we have become so used to Democrats winning decisive popular vote victories, and yet still losing the Electoral College and thus the presidency; or Democrats soundly winning both the popular vote and the electoral college, but anti-democratic Republicans still refusing to acknowledge the election outcome, that a Republican winning the Electoral College along with a narrow popular vote margin reads as a crushing victory. That in spite of the fact that something like 10 million Democratic voters appear simply not to have turned out this year; in spite of the fact that the Republicans have spent decades (generations really) trying to engineer a vote in their own favor in the face of overwhelming demographic realities to the contrary through gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter disenfranchisement, and a whole host of other tactics which are a matter of public record, and which many proponents of our president-elect will, of course – in Orwellian doublespeak – claim have been pursued in defense of democracy.

Short and sweet today – please, stop building this man up. He is an unpopular, unhealthy, unhinged old man; politically weak; rudderless, save for his own disgusting and ferocious self-serving-ness; and we should oppose him, his movement, and everything he and it stand for before we unwittingly enable them to fully dismantle our institutions and set us on the course of illiberal democracy.

Our task is to build a new consensus that centers public goods and popular welfare and to (re)build a broad coalition – already there in outline beneath the surface of all the vitriol and misinformation fueled by Twitter, Fox News, et al – around such a broadly popular agenda. Trump enters office as the most widely hated, if also the most intensely loved, politician in generations, and there’s no reason he can’t exit office as a sad and ugly footnote: His future significance rests in our hands in the present.

Learning Only the Wrong Lessons: Corporate Democrats and New York Times Liberals Want to Double Down on Losing

Just glancing over Maureen Dowd’s op-ed this morning, and it seems corporate Democrats in the US are well on the way to once again learning nothing from a devastating loss at the polls and are once again intent on pinning the blame anywhere but on themselves.

Here’s what I wrote to some friends on November 6th: I’ll just note that it’s been 40+ years of neoliberalism that brought us to this point; the entire US political spectrum has shifted far to the right during that period; right-wing ideologues have played a very effective long game over multiple decades to seize power at every level of US gov’t and in so doing, to hollow out many of our core institutions and public goods; the US political establishment failed to meaningfully respond to the collapse of this neoliberal consensus after the GFC and left us with a limping, attenuated zombie neoliberalism instead; and as a byproduct, space was opened up for neofascism to fill the void. If we don’t want to descend into the abyss, I believe we need to start thinking and planning on a multi-decadal time horizon how we offer a true alternative. Obviously preaching to the choir here, and grateful for good work that many of you are doing, but I find it helpful personally at times like this to anchor, at least for a moment, before circling back to near-term scrambling and damage control.

In my view, the lesson that should be learned by the Democratic Party is that abandoning universal programs, social welfare, public goods, and the working class was a tragic mistake, and that the fateful choice made by party elites to go to any length to sabotage the Sanders campaign in 2016 (and again in 2020) set us on the path to this grim moment; however, the lesson that apparently is being learned is that the Democrats were “too radical” – a totally laughable notion given that, on most issues that matter (corporate power, taxation, labor rights), our Democrats of today look like moderate Republicans of 50 years ago, and in peer countries with actual political left parties, our Democrats would sit well to the center right – and that it is now time to throw trans kids under the metaphorical bus. What goes unsaid here is that, under a broad Obama-Clinton umbrella, the corporate Democratic Party mobilized exactly this now maligned identity politics against Sanders – to try to paint him and his movement as racist, sexist, etc – rather than embrace the broad, class-based politics that Sanders advanced and which clearly spoke to a large fraction of the population. In the meantime, the idea of abandoning the most vulnerable among us just as national politics turn sharply against them is reprehensible.

We have our work cut out for us, but briefly on a few other topics of relevance, at least to me, I’ve heard/read many people in climate tech questioning whether it’s wise to continue to say the word “climate”. As a matter of pragmatism or necessity, many teams will, no doubt, shift to talking about energy, infrastructure, resilience, or even geopolitics. So be it, but the first people to abandon the climate label – I’m looking at you, MCJ!! – will also have been some of the most vocal in having previously appropriating it, and will often enough be the same “climate” folks who have been most eager to malign activists, organizers, and exactly the grassroots movements that have driven climate action and progress for decades (including through lonely and trying years when few outside those circles were concerned with climate issues). For those of us who were around before, and will be here after, it is easy to recognize fair-weather friends who had a convenient four-year bout of climate on their LinkedIns, and I’ll only add, in more November 6th writing, on why I, personally, will continue to say “climate”:

It’s 80 degrees in NYC today (and routinely) now and a major hurricane is takings shape in the Gulf as we approach the second week of November. Climate is the word, and we should continue to say it routinely because it reflects the broader truth of our circumstance. Florida, Texas, Arizona, and the whole Gulf Coast are in very bad shape and our task in places that still believe in gov’t is continuing to respond to the urgent tasks at hands and positioning ourselves and those after us to have a fighting shot at addressing these challenges.

Finally, from the 6th, on calls for bi-partisanship, etc, in the end, I’m a pragmatist and care about people at an individual level, and we’ll have to muddle through in the face of whatever circumstance brings, but feel it’s important we not delude ourselves about the nature of the movement that has risen to power nationally:

The intellectual authors and ideological leaders of Trumpism do not believe in democracy. They are theocrats, monarchists, and the like, and well-meaning folks from the left showing up to ask how the everyday people soldiering this movement are feeling when its leaders have arrived and announced, ‘We are going to kill you’ is misguided. As the Republican Party has trended increasingly nihilistic and omnicidal, its leadership have shown a clear willingness to do more or less anything in the name of political power, and they definitely don’t care about fairness, procedure, or our institutions.

Trumpism’s mass base seems to be cold-hearted fiscal conservatives who are willing to do anything to reduce their tax burden, etc, on the one hand, and, on the other, a large, deluded fraction of the population who – yes, have suffered under the exact structural conditions mentioned above (neoliberalism writ large, the concomitant wealth and income inequality, deindustrialization, destruction of organized labor, etc – ironically, all challenges that Biden did more than any president of the last 50 years to address) – but also, frankly, were participating in large numbers in Trump campaign events that looked and sounded like Nuremberg Rallies or Two Minutes’ Hate. Trump ran openly as a fascist, and won. He talked about murdering journalists and attacking his political enemies. He encouraged his supporters to drink bleach, take horse tranquilizers, and ransack the national capital, among many other things. He is very clearly out to enrich himself, his family, and his cronies, but has successfully hoodwinked a large, disaffected percentage of the population who are high on grievance and in the grip of a misdirected cruelty that he cares about (let alone represents) their interests. Given the size, diversity, and political decentralization of the United States, that doesn’t mean we’re headed into fascism nationally, but we should be clear-eyed about the nature of the threat.

The right in the US has driven fully off the cliff. We are holding them now as they enter into free fall. Following after them – copy of Hillbilly Elegy in hand – to enquire after their state of mind is not advisable. Yes, we should pull them back to reality in the name of decency and the future of a livable planet and our country, flawed as it may be, but pretending like there’s a conversation to be had on many of the core issues strikes me as partaking in their delusion. We need to get more serious about power, institutions, and winning a different future – and in my view, that means a sharp focus on transforming the material conditions and structural realities of US life – or we can all just settle into not using the word “climate” and getting increasingly more paranoid (like everyone on the left already is in India) about not saying the wrong things online

Not a future I want to live in, so I intend to model an alternative, starting with this post.

The End of Climate Tech Innocence

I find it very hopeful that Christmas cactuses (true to their name) bloom in the dead of winter!

A strange thing happened yesterday. I wrote a LinkedIn post publicly critiquing MCJ Collective for uncritically platforming fossil fuel companies on their influential #climatetech podcast, and for the thin-skinned way in which they responded to criticism.

I promptly started receiving messages from people I didn’t know saying things like “you are a hero.” I found this equal parts startling and gratifying (though this particular compliment was surely overstated!), but more surprising still, the people who were DMing me were mostly not publicly engaging with my post. That struck me as strange, until a friend wrote to say that I was “a brave man.” I came to the conclusion that people were afraid.

But of MCJ? I could hardly believe that. Sure, I may have critiqued their handling of an important issue, but as a long-time listener of the podcast, (I hope still) a friend of the team, and an LP in their fund, that the good folks at MCJ were frightening anyone was difficult for me to imagine. Setting aside that their success to date has been nothing short of legendary (a case study in execution for which the whole team deserves credit, but most especially Jason Jacobs and Thai Nguyen), I am quite certain that no one on the MCJ team is out to scare anyone.

Why then this fear? The climate policy and climate tech worlds that I am proud to be a part of are certainly not characterized by it – quite the opposite. These are the most refreshingly warm, welcoming, collaborative, and affirming professional spaces in which I’ve ever had the pleasure of participating, and I feel lucky every day to be a small part of big meaningful work, surrounded by lots of people I like and respect.

Surely many people working in the fossil fuel industry feel much the same about their work environments, or so I’d hope at least, and yet it is easier for me to see where the fear might come in – what with the private armies murdering activists in the Niger Delta; the various autocrats poisoning their political enemies or having journalists murdered and dismembered; not to mention what my own government (that of the United States, that is) did in Iraq in the name of oil; and that’s before coming to the decades of oil and gas companies lying to the public to prop up their own profits while accelerating the planet towards a kind of climate cliff.

And this, perhaps, speaks to the impasse at which we’ve now collectively arrived in climate tech. We are no longer marginal. By the end of this decade, green energy will just be energy, and climate tech will be the largely invisible fabric of everyday life. Perhaps the participation of O&G companies in this transformation is necessary, or even desirable, and either way, as a pragmatist and a materialist, I see it as inevitable. 

What is not inevitable is how we choose to navigate the irreducible complexity of the dynamics in the world around us. Many investors I respect actively work with O&G CVCs – as one friend put it “To whom [the O&G companies have] given $500M to hide the $100s of billions elsewhere” – and my impression is that there is deep talent and expertise within these entities. I personally have no purity test on this front, contra much of the straw man-baiting of folks who would like to reduce a left climate tech perspective to a caricature; however, I do think it’s important to, at very least, remain critical, and ideally, not do things like let representatives of an O&G company – even its nominally climate-focused CVC – on a podcast to peddle a false narrative. This is one place where I’d draw a line, and why I wrote my post yesterday.

For better or worse, from here, the questions for climate tech will only get harder. Soon, we won’t just have one raging billionaire in our sector, misbehaving at the helm of an auto company; we’ll have a great many very large and powerful corporations that, no doubt, will do what big corporations do and abuse their power for their own ends. To the extent that those ends can be, to some extent, aligned with averting the worst potential outcomes of the climate crisis, I’ll see that as a qualified good, but whether with respect to corporate power, or to the distorting influence of O&G (and other) wealth on climate tech venture capital, I foresee some necessary soul searching as we approach the second half of this decade.

Hopefully, the institutional LPs and (U)HNWIs in Abu Dhabi, Houston, Riyadh, and elsewhere who are increasingly helping to fund climate/energy transition are seeding the demise of the industry that has made so many people in places like these so fabulously wealthy, but in the meantime, the least we can do is continue to live and work in ways such that people in our industry aren’t afraid to speak their minds (and that powerful actors in climate tech don’t end up, as so often happens, in yes-person bubbles of their own making).

The most we can do is much, much more than that! But that can be for some other post…

Oh, and to head off some obvious potential trolling – yes, energy is very important! But so is a stable climate system on planet Earth, and after 30+ years of lies, delays, etc, it is hard to take seriously the sudden burst of concern from certain O&G maxis about, for example, energy poverty in the Global South. We were cooking with gas, and (fossil) plastic did make it possible. In the past tense.

A better world is possible, and we’re moving towards it very rapidly. Fossil fuels, for the most part, will not be a part of it.