It was back in July 2016 that I first posted about what I see as “the Emotion-o-meter” that highlights the two extreme (and opposite) views that seem to finding increasingly loud voices in the shouting match that is overwhelming logical discussion and debate about this multi-faceted energy transition.
In my talk at Clean Energy Summit 2017, I put up the following slide to illustrate the noise emanating from both ends in what could best be described as a shouting match:
Unfortunately, with all the complexity interlaced in what happened in the market on Thursday and Friday last week, shortened arguments (overly simplistic arguments) are the ones that are cutting through with the general public (who, as voters, have already been nominated as Villain #2). That’s why I had slotted those at the extremes of the Emotion-o-meter as (jointly) the Villains #3.
For any politician that are not, themselves, captive at either extreme of the Emotion-o-meter (which might be a tall order in itself), we’re not making it easy for them to understand all the factors at play in outcomes that are very material to energy users at a number of levels.