Political Influences on Decision Making

How do you make decisions when things get “political”?

I’m not talking about who to vote for. I’m referring to the type of politics where there is more to the discussion than what’s on the surface. Where there are unspoken concerns or factors between the parties involved that influence behavior and positions.

Politics makes decision-making difficult because of the trust dynamics that result with political motivations. Can I read this info at face value, or has it been altered as a result of political concerns or trade-offs?

For example, the Obama administration touted its climate-friendly stance, including its support of the Paris Climate Agreement. Similarly, Biden made a show of recommitting the U.S. to the Agreement when he took office after Trump had withdrawn during his term. Unlike Trump’s open hostility toward the climate movement, the Obama and Biden administrations have positioned themselves as allies of the clean energy crowd.

This climate-friendly public image is promoted in spite of policies that have been a boon to oil and gas. While Obama served, the White House paved the way for expansion of shale oil & gas mining. This move strengthened the economic power of the U.S. and ultimately positioned us very advantageously in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

“But fracked natural gas is much cleaner than alternatives like coal. It’s the ‘bridge’ fuel we need,” says the oil & gas lobby. “Look at the science.”

Does the trade-off make it worth it? In other words, for those who support a climate-friendly stance, does the expansion of the fossil fuel industry become more palatable in light of the growing use of a cleaner option and the overall benefit to the American economy?

What if the science isn’t as clear?

A new study out of Cornell University calls the science that teaches “clean natural gas” into question, as reported by The Guardian. Researchers concluded that the entirety of the process of extracting, processing, transporting, and combusting natural gas releases 33% more emissions over a 20-year period compared to coal.

What does that mean for Obama and Biden supporters who see their leaders saying one thing and doing another? What is the trade-off between the geopolitical policy to assure the strength of the US in the community of nations and the domestic policy to respond to an environmental mandate? And what then does it mean for an enterprise looking to make strategic energy choices that are consistent with the direction of U.S. energy policy? How do corporate leaders interpret the signals delivered by government leaders? Which ones do they ignore and which do they pay special attention to?

Politics – including the policies and regulations that are on the books and the nuances between the lines – are a majorly complicating factor in strategic decision-making.

These are the types of challenges we help clients navigate at Tilt Global.