{"id":12662,"date":"2016-11-04T16:57:01","date_gmt":"2016-11-04T20:57:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/digital.hbs.edu\/platform-rctom\/submission\/do-political-parties-use-climate-change-demagogically\/"},"modified":"2016-11-04T16:57:01","modified_gmt":"2016-11-04T20:57:01","slug":"do-political-parties-use-climate-change-demagogically","status":"publish","type":"hck-submission","link":"https:\/\/d3.harvard.edu\/platform-rctom\/submission\/do-political-parties-use-climate-change-demagogically\/","title":{"rendered":"Do political parties use climate change demagogically?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Climate change is a frequent topic in political debates, with liberals typically more environmentally concerned than conservatives.[1]<\/a> However, do liberal political parties adapt their environmental policies to maximize their popularity, sometimes with a position that can negatively impact global warming?<\/p>\n

Pushing renewable energy first and then supporting the coal industry, the PSOE[2]<\/a>, \u2013 Spanish biggest left-wing political party \u2013 \u00a0has used climate change to maximize voter support, not necessarily in the best interest of the environment.<\/p>\n

\"psoe\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

During the 2004 Presidential Election campaign, PSOE\u2019s central claim regarding energy policy was to promote renewable energies[3]<\/a>. This attracted many \u201cgreen\u201d votes and Zapatero[4]<\/a> won the Election. In 2007, Zapatero approved new incentives to subsidize the installation of new renewable capacity, causing a boom in wind and solar.<\/p>\n

\"aaa1\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 1<\/p>\n

Source: Own elaboration based on data from IDAE[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Increasing renewable energies\u2019 penetration had two effects:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Renewable energies substituted other generation<\/strong> sources, such as coal-based thermoelectric generation. Since the electricity demand for the 2007 to 2011 period remained stable[6]<\/a>, some suppliers had to reduce their generation weight.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \"aaa2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    Figure 2<\/p>\n

    Source: Own elaboration based on data from REE<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Thermoelectric plants burned coal to generate electricity. This coal was mainly extracted from mines located in the north of Spain, where PSOE had a strong basis of voters\u2019 support.<\/p>\n

    When the introduction of renewable energies started to reduce the need of thermoelectric generation (from 26% to 7% of electricity demand in just three years[7]<\/a>), the mining companies tried to export the Spanish coal, but it was less competitive than international standards due to its high price (despite EU subsidies to national coal) and higher contamination standards (containing 1-5% of sulfur vs 0.5% standard[8]<\/a>).<\/p>\n

    As a consequence, mines reduced their extracting operations and unemployment of miners<\/strong> rose. Strong lobbying from the mining sector and combative miners\u2019 protests burst.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Promoting the installation of renewable energies increased public debt<\/strong>, since electricity tariffs paid by end consumers did not cover the subsidies paid to renewable generators.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \"aaa3\"<\/a><\/p>\n

      Figure 3<\/p>\n

      Source: Own elaboration based on data from Bankinter[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      In 2010 the Spanish Government was struggling due to the financial and sovereign debt crisis<\/strong>. Employment and economic viability were now the main concerns of the population.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      In this context, PSOE reconsidered its position towards climate change<\/strong> and adapted to the new situation. The party believed that the economic and political cost of pushing renewable energy further was not worth it.<\/p>\n