What do you think?
Rate this book
Climate of Contempt: How to Rescue the U.S. Energy Transition from Voter Partisanship
Why is the United States struggling to enact policies to reduce carbon emissions? Conventional wisdom holds that the wealthy and powerful are to blame, as the oligarchs and corporations that wield disproportionate sway over politicians prioritize their short-term financial interests over the climate’s long-term health. David B. Spence argues that this top-down narrative misses a more important culpritwith critical consequences for the energy transition.
Climate of Contempt offers a voter-centric, bottom-up explanation of national climate and energy politics, one that pinpoints bitter partisanship as the key impediment to transitioning to a net zero carbon future. The most powerful driver of polarization, in turn, is the mixture of ideology and social media that constitutes today’s information environment, which amplifies anger, spreads half truths and falsehoods, and sows division, distorting voters’ understandings of the energy transition and their fellow citizens.
Spence explores the effects of polarization, partisanship, and propaganda on energy policy and considers how to build a broader climate coalition. He contends that cooperation on this crucial issue is still possible, but it will require sustained person-to-person engagement across ideological and partisan boundaries to foster a more productive dialogue. Providing a timely and incisive understanding of the politics of the energy transition, Climate of Contempt suggests new paths forward and offers hope for a net-zero future.
The book is published by Columbia University Press. The audiobook is published by University Press Audiobooks.
Climate of Contempt offers a voter-centric, bottom-up explanation of national climate and energy politics, one that pinpoints bitter partisanship as the key impediment to transitioning to a net zero carbon future. The most powerful driver of polarization, in turn, is the mixture of ideology and social media that constitutes today’s information environment, which amplifies anger, spreads half truths and falsehoods, and sows division, distorting voters’ understandings of the energy transition and their fellow citizens.
Spence explores the effects of polarization, partisanship, and propaganda on energy policy and considers how to build a broader climate coalition. He contends that cooperation on this crucial issue is still possible, but it will require sustained person-to-person engagement across ideological and partisan boundaries to foster a more productive dialogue. Providing a timely and incisive understanding of the politics of the energy transition, Climate of Contempt suggests new paths forward and offers hope for a net-zero future.
The book is published by Columbia University Press. The audiobook is published by University Press Audiobooks.
400 pages, Paperback
Published August 6, 2024
5 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 14, 2025
This book, written by my Energy Law professor, David Spence, offers a comprehensive look at the history of energy regulations, the diverse influences shaping them, and the challenges facing the energy transition moving forward. Spence delves into issues like the increasing strain on the grid from natural disasters and, most notably, the shifting political landscape—driven by decentralized media, inflammatory rhetoric, and, in my view, the overly normalized effects of gerrymandering. These dynamics often leave politicians beholden to their most ideologically extreme voters (or "negative partisans"). While Spence doesn’t provide a definitive solution, he thoroughly examines the forces at play.
I found the book fascinating, though somewhat dense. Energy regulation is inherently technical and complex, making it difficult to digest large portions at once. However, this complexity underscores Spence’s central message: achieving energy transition goals requires recognizing the validity of opposing policy perspectives. Contrary to social media punditry, there are reasonable and necessary truths on both sides of the ideological spectrum in this area.
The book’s relevance lies in its call for building a climate coalition. A hard truth many refuse to acknowledge is that real progress requires growing the coalition and finding common ground. When it comes to climate action, time is running out. We can argue endlessly, but saying “I told you so” after disaster strikes does nothing to help those who will suffer the most.
quotes that stood out to me !
“But if in the name of rallying support we ignore inconvenient truths unearthed by critical thinking -- the thorny technoeconomic and political trade-offs that lie at the heart of the energy transition -- we deny ourselves and others a full understanding of the problem. That understanding can help us avoid the pain of unnecessary missteps as the transition unfolds.”
“There is a distinction between acknowledging that legal rules are “political” because they produce winners and losers, on the one hand, and denying the valuer of liberal-democratic aspiration to truth seeking, objectivity, and fair process, on the other. The former does not negate the latter.”
“We need sober thinkers who refuse to submit to the lures of fatalism or apocalypticism, pipe dreams of total revolution or redemption by the progress of reason--yet aim to be more than . . . foot soldiers amid current orders of knowledge or politics.”
“Traditional news sources now emulate the newer forms of media. . . They do so because they now serve a market that one academic describes as “ever-hungry for big stories at whatever costs.” Writers know that the quest for viral stories is driven by “human emotion and human psychology,” and so they cater to that emotion by “sanding the inconvenient edges off of facts in order to suit the narrative.”
“You can tell me that 70 percent of Americans don’t participate in the culture war, but it doesn’t really matter. Events today are driven by small numbers that can shame and intimidate large numbers. Social media has changed the dynamic. Even if most Americants practice excellent fire safety habits. If a small minority is rewarded for throwing lit matches, we’re going to live in an age of arson.”
“No one can be endlessly curious about every important issue. But what we can do is to recognize that there are often devils in the details, unknowns that we may not yet fully understand or appreciate. We can try to be humble about what we believe we know and don;t know, to resist certainty, and to avoid moral judgment in the absence of deep understanding.
“If cynicism is critical thinking without hope, that cynicism isn’t helpful. Growing the climate coalition requires critical thinking and hope. It requires the climate coalition to remain hopeful and to face, perspicaciously and transparently, both the difficult trade-offs we must make to get to net zero and the true nature of the political dysfunction that stands in the way of the energy transition.”
I found the book fascinating, though somewhat dense. Energy regulation is inherently technical and complex, making it difficult to digest large portions at once. However, this complexity underscores Spence’s central message: achieving energy transition goals requires recognizing the validity of opposing policy perspectives. Contrary to social media punditry, there are reasonable and necessary truths on both sides of the ideological spectrum in this area.
The book’s relevance lies in its call for building a climate coalition. A hard truth many refuse to acknowledge is that real progress requires growing the coalition and finding common ground. When it comes to climate action, time is running out. We can argue endlessly, but saying “I told you so” after disaster strikes does nothing to help those who will suffer the most.
quotes that stood out to me !
“But if in the name of rallying support we ignore inconvenient truths unearthed by critical thinking -- the thorny technoeconomic and political trade-offs that lie at the heart of the energy transition -- we deny ourselves and others a full understanding of the problem. That understanding can help us avoid the pain of unnecessary missteps as the transition unfolds.”
“There is a distinction between acknowledging that legal rules are “political” because they produce winners and losers, on the one hand, and denying the valuer of liberal-democratic aspiration to truth seeking, objectivity, and fair process, on the other. The former does not negate the latter.”
“We need sober thinkers who refuse to submit to the lures of fatalism or apocalypticism, pipe dreams of total revolution or redemption by the progress of reason--yet aim to be more than . . . foot soldiers amid current orders of knowledge or politics.”
“Traditional news sources now emulate the newer forms of media. . . They do so because they now serve a market that one academic describes as “ever-hungry for big stories at whatever costs.” Writers know that the quest for viral stories is driven by “human emotion and human psychology,” and so they cater to that emotion by “sanding the inconvenient edges off of facts in order to suit the narrative.”
“You can tell me that 70 percent of Americans don’t participate in the culture war, but it doesn’t really matter. Events today are driven by small numbers that can shame and intimidate large numbers. Social media has changed the dynamic. Even if most Americants practice excellent fire safety habits. If a small minority is rewarded for throwing lit matches, we’re going to live in an age of arson.”
“No one can be endlessly curious about every important issue. But what we can do is to recognize that there are often devils in the details, unknowns that we may not yet fully understand or appreciate. We can try to be humble about what we believe we know and don;t know, to resist certainty, and to avoid moral judgment in the absence of deep understanding.
“If cynicism is critical thinking without hope, that cynicism isn’t helpful. Growing the climate coalition requires critical thinking and hope. It requires the climate coalition to remain hopeful and to face, perspicaciously and transparently, both the difficult trade-offs we must make to get to net zero and the true nature of the political dysfunction that stands in the way of the energy transition.”
January 1, 2026
BOOK REVIEW – Climate of Contempt, by David B. Spence (12.31.26)
Full disclosure: the author is an old friend. We practiced together as environmental lawyers at a large national firm before Dave left to pursue a PhD and an academic career—a move that surprised many of us, given how respected and relied upon he was.
Climate of Contempt: How to Rescue the U.S. Energy Transition from Voter Partisanship offers one of the clearest explanations I have read for why national climate policy repeatedly stalls. While acknowledging the influence of major economic interests, Spence argues that the most durable obstacle today is the polarized mindset of voters themselves. Mutual distrust makes cooperation politically risky and turns even modest climate proposals into markers of partisan loyalty.
A key strength of the book is its reframing of political inaction. Spence does not discount corporate power, but he places heavier weight on how lawmakers interpret the expectations of their most ideologically driven constituents. In a political atmosphere where contempt for the other side is often a badge of membership, compromise becomes a liability.
Spence grounds his understanding of “political will” in the emotional texture of modern partisanship. Climate and energy debates are no longer just policy disputes; they have been absorbed into a broader cultural conflict in which taking the “wrong” position threatens one’s identity. This dynamic is reinforced by today’s media ecosystem, which rewards provocation and sharpens partisan narratives. The result is a public more likely to view climate policy through the lens of identity and fear rather than through scientific or economic considerations.
These forces are most visible in Congress. Even when legislators recognize the risks of climate change and the public’s interest in action, transforming that concern into durable policy requires a rare alignment of political opportunity and public sentiment. Spence refers to such windows as “republican moments.” He concludes that the current climate of distrust makes those moments scarce, and that proposals with broad appeal can still be rejected when they are framed as partisan wins.
Spence is realistic but clear about the costs of delay. Climate action is cumulative: partial progress matters, but postponement raises the long-term financial and social costs of the transition. He also warns that persistent stalemate weakens democratic norms by encouraging symbolic conflict over shared problem-solving.
The book’s most constructive contribution is its focus on what might break the impasse. Spence argues that meaningful climate progress depends on rebuilding political relationships and engaging skeptics directly. He offers several practical steps, including:
• Lead with persuasion, not performance. - Treat skeptics as potential partners, not enemies to be routed.
• Invest in personal, repeated conversations. - Face-to-face engagement lowers defenses and enables genuine listening—conditions online exchanges rarely produce.
• Connect climate policy to everyday concerns. - Reliability, jobs, resilience, and affordability resonate across political lines and make climate policy less abstract.
Together, these recommendations point toward a form of climate politics rooted in civic responsibility rather than partisan scorekeeping. Spence ultimately asks whether a diverse democracy can still deliberate and compromise in the face of long-term collective challenges.
His answer is demanding but hopeful. Climate of Contempt suggests that the path to meaningful climate action runs through persuasion, patience, and trust—and that progress begins with how we choose to speak to one another.
Full disclosure: the author is an old friend. We practiced together as environmental lawyers at a large national firm before Dave left to pursue a PhD and an academic career—a move that surprised many of us, given how respected and relied upon he was.
Climate of Contempt: How to Rescue the U.S. Energy Transition from Voter Partisanship offers one of the clearest explanations I have read for why national climate policy repeatedly stalls. While acknowledging the influence of major economic interests, Spence argues that the most durable obstacle today is the polarized mindset of voters themselves. Mutual distrust makes cooperation politically risky and turns even modest climate proposals into markers of partisan loyalty.
A key strength of the book is its reframing of political inaction. Spence does not discount corporate power, but he places heavier weight on how lawmakers interpret the expectations of their most ideologically driven constituents. In a political atmosphere where contempt for the other side is often a badge of membership, compromise becomes a liability.
Spence grounds his understanding of “political will” in the emotional texture of modern partisanship. Climate and energy debates are no longer just policy disputes; they have been absorbed into a broader cultural conflict in which taking the “wrong” position threatens one’s identity. This dynamic is reinforced by today’s media ecosystem, which rewards provocation and sharpens partisan narratives. The result is a public more likely to view climate policy through the lens of identity and fear rather than through scientific or economic considerations.
These forces are most visible in Congress. Even when legislators recognize the risks of climate change and the public’s interest in action, transforming that concern into durable policy requires a rare alignment of political opportunity and public sentiment. Spence refers to such windows as “republican moments.” He concludes that the current climate of distrust makes those moments scarce, and that proposals with broad appeal can still be rejected when they are framed as partisan wins.
Spence is realistic but clear about the costs of delay. Climate action is cumulative: partial progress matters, but postponement raises the long-term financial and social costs of the transition. He also warns that persistent stalemate weakens democratic norms by encouraging symbolic conflict over shared problem-solving.
The book’s most constructive contribution is its focus on what might break the impasse. Spence argues that meaningful climate progress depends on rebuilding political relationships and engaging skeptics directly. He offers several practical steps, including:
• Lead with persuasion, not performance. - Treat skeptics as potential partners, not enemies to be routed.
• Invest in personal, repeated conversations. - Face-to-face engagement lowers defenses and enables genuine listening—conditions online exchanges rarely produce.
• Connect climate policy to everyday concerns. - Reliability, jobs, resilience, and affordability resonate across political lines and make climate policy less abstract.
Together, these recommendations point toward a form of climate politics rooted in civic responsibility rather than partisan scorekeeping. Spence ultimately asks whether a diverse democracy can still deliberate and compromise in the face of long-term collective challenges.
His answer is demanding but hopeful. Climate of Contempt suggests that the path to meaningful climate action runs through persuasion, patience, and trust—and that progress begins with how we choose to speak to one another.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews