You're right that physics will crush the net-zero agenda. I'm not certain you're right that the left will become energy realists as a result. There are so many convenient, readymade bogeymen to blame for the failures.
>> Why is the grid becoming more unreliable? It must be climate change.
>> Why did the net-zero agenda fail? The evil oil/gas industry.
>> Why is energy becoming more expensive? Corporate greed.
>> What's the solution? More taxpayer-funded subsidies for more renewable energy.
People like blaming common enemies much more than they like reflecting on their own errors. Democrats know this, and they've built a party around it.
Many of the same people who believe we will rid ourselves of fossil fuels shortly, are the same people carrying "Gays for Hamas" signs, blindly unaware they are cheering, their own demise.
The vast majority of Americans have no idea, electricity is not an energy source, but a delivery system. Even when they see large diesel generators, sitting next to the charging stations, they fail to make the connection. They also have no idea how their food originates, before it arrives in a Whole Foods. A combine harvesting US grain, in the middle of a field that runs for miles, can be refueled by a fuel truck, in mere minutes, charging stations are harder to come by. Moreover, the US population is moving from north to south, where perpetual AC is not a luxury, but a necessity of life .
Finally, US Climate Warriors refuse to acknowledge at its' base, Climate Change is a Math problem. Assuming every thing Climate Crusaders claim is true, the US foregoing all power, but actual horses and candles, would be, but, a rounding error in the world's Climate. We are a paltry 335 million people, out of 8 billion. We have already reduced our carbon output, back to 1990s levels. If Climate Change is a problem to be solved, the answer will be found in changing the behavior of huge cities in China, India , Africa, and South America, not in bankrupting Americans.
Teixeira's numbers demonstrate vividly the SCALE of the transition that will be required, not only to replace our current fossil-fuel-based world, but to absorb the rightful claims of the ascendant global masses moving out of extreme poverty. For the sake of his argument, he underplays the costs of delay or the urgency of the need to get to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. He's right about the scale, but wrong about the urgency and the need to respond as if it's an emegency.
The "all of the above" strategy should not only include all forms of energy, but all forms of policy responses -- the most important one of which is carbon pricing. Carbon pricing will unleash the private sector innovations, investments and tech progress necessary to find low cost, reliable substitutes for fossil fuel energy.
Personally, I'm a fan of carbon fee and dividend (https://energyinnovationact.org/), which is composed of 1) a small fee that gradually rises, assessed at the source (mine, well, port of entry); 2) a 100% rebate of the collected fees, sent pro rata to American households each month; and 3) a carbon border adjustment to protect our international competitiveness. Those three elements are mandatory for the policy to be viable. A desirable fourth element is regulatory reforms to address the patchwork of administrative reviews, judicial "stays" and other impediments to the rapid, large scale, build-out of the clean energy infrastructure.
DEMS are there. Sen. Whitehouse had 49 "yes" votes last congress, only missing Sen. Manchin. We need some centrist Republicans to create a bipartisan consensus for making this market-based solution durable over the decades necessary for such a huge transition.
I'm buying a new car this year and it won't be an EV or a Hybrid - the numbers just don't work for me. I make a 400 mile (one way) trip each month and the charging infrastructure just isn't there. No one I know wants one. And until I'm convinced that children won't be mining precious metals, I will never buy one.
This, unfortunately, very plausible; however, the discussion focusing on electoral feasibility seems to downplay or ignore the real, existential threat of climate change. Think of children now in Kindergarten, who should live into the 22nd Century. What will they have to cope with? Think of the climate refugees who may well overwhelm North America and Europe: we will need pragmatic policies to cope with them as well, one hopes within the current political system. What's needed is a degree of "realism", but "realism" should include some crusading on the depth and implications of the climate problem: we need political leadership that focuses on that problem, as well as on the incidental energy and political issues discussed in the article. An all-out campaign, as with Roosevelt's campaign to sell World War II is what's needed.
Wayne, I grew up with the media yelling that an ice age was imminent. In the grand scale of earths age it was almost yesterday. Then it was years of global warming. Now it’s that every time there is a storm or unpredictable weather event it’s man made climate change. Heck, a politician just said the last eclipse and northeast earthquake were due to climate change. You want to believe that man has anything to do with the climate changing then go ahead and put windmills and solar panels on your property. But to try and change societies basic sources of power and to some extent survival, using climate models, is beyond lunacy. Everyone knows a model is only as good as the data fed it, and there are prominent scientists who have shown that the data being fed into these climate models are at best inaccurate.
Insurance companies are for-profit organizations. They read the bottom line and make decisions based on that. Cost of materials, prevailing wages, overall cost of repairs and likelihood of payouts are all factors in coverage and pricing.
“Lefty, this discussion/debate is not timely between you and me, I now realize, because you are not persuaded that there's a real problem. So until that more basic issue is resolved, let's shelve debate over solutions for the time being, OK?”
I agree Wayne but for a different reason. You have swallowed hook, line and sinker that climate change is man made and can be artificially manipulated by everyone paying more money to the gov’t. Until you stop believing the propaganda that the far left activists, grant dependent scientists and gov’t propagandists spew and look dispassionately using science and actually listen to scientists with dissenting viewpoints, our discussions are just like yelling in an empty hallway.
You're right that physics will crush the net-zero agenda. I'm not certain you're right that the left will become energy realists as a result. There are so many convenient, readymade bogeymen to blame for the failures.
>> Why is the grid becoming more unreliable? It must be climate change.
>> Why did the net-zero agenda fail? The evil oil/gas industry.
>> Why is energy becoming more expensive? Corporate greed.
>> What's the solution? More taxpayer-funded subsidies for more renewable energy.
People like blaming common enemies much more than they like reflecting on their own errors. Democrats know this, and they've built a party around it.
Many of the same people who believe we will rid ourselves of fossil fuels shortly, are the same people carrying "Gays for Hamas" signs, blindly unaware they are cheering, their own demise.
The vast majority of Americans have no idea, electricity is not an energy source, but a delivery system. Even when they see large diesel generators, sitting next to the charging stations, they fail to make the connection. They also have no idea how their food originates, before it arrives in a Whole Foods. A combine harvesting US grain, in the middle of a field that runs for miles, can be refueled by a fuel truck, in mere minutes, charging stations are harder to come by. Moreover, the US population is moving from north to south, where perpetual AC is not a luxury, but a necessity of life .
Finally, US Climate Warriors refuse to acknowledge at its' base, Climate Change is a Math problem. Assuming every thing Climate Crusaders claim is true, the US foregoing all power, but actual horses and candles, would be, but, a rounding error in the world's Climate. We are a paltry 335 million people, out of 8 billion. We have already reduced our carbon output, back to 1990s levels. If Climate Change is a problem to be solved, the answer will be found in changing the behavior of huge cities in China, India , Africa, and South America, not in bankrupting Americans.
Teixeira's numbers demonstrate vividly the SCALE of the transition that will be required, not only to replace our current fossil-fuel-based world, but to absorb the rightful claims of the ascendant global masses moving out of extreme poverty. For the sake of his argument, he underplays the costs of delay or the urgency of the need to get to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. He's right about the scale, but wrong about the urgency and the need to respond as if it's an emegency.
The "all of the above" strategy should not only include all forms of energy, but all forms of policy responses -- the most important one of which is carbon pricing. Carbon pricing will unleash the private sector innovations, investments and tech progress necessary to find low cost, reliable substitutes for fossil fuel energy.
Personally, I'm a fan of carbon fee and dividend (https://energyinnovationact.org/), which is composed of 1) a small fee that gradually rises, assessed at the source (mine, well, port of entry); 2) a 100% rebate of the collected fees, sent pro rata to American households each month; and 3) a carbon border adjustment to protect our international competitiveness. Those three elements are mandatory for the policy to be viable. A desirable fourth element is regulatory reforms to address the patchwork of administrative reviews, judicial "stays" and other impediments to the rapid, large scale, build-out of the clean energy infrastructure.
DEMS are there. Sen. Whitehouse had 49 "yes" votes last congress, only missing Sen. Manchin. We need some centrist Republicans to create a bipartisan consensus for making this market-based solution durable over the decades necessary for such a huge transition.
I'm buying a new car this year and it won't be an EV or a Hybrid - the numbers just don't work for me. I make a 400 mile (one way) trip each month and the charging infrastructure just isn't there. No one I know wants one. And until I'm convinced that children won't be mining precious metals, I will never buy one.
This, unfortunately, very plausible; however, the discussion focusing on electoral feasibility seems to downplay or ignore the real, existential threat of climate change. Think of children now in Kindergarten, who should live into the 22nd Century. What will they have to cope with? Think of the climate refugees who may well overwhelm North America and Europe: we will need pragmatic policies to cope with them as well, one hopes within the current political system. What's needed is a degree of "realism", but "realism" should include some crusading on the depth and implications of the climate problem: we need political leadership that focuses on that problem, as well as on the incidental energy and political issues discussed in the article. An all-out campaign, as with Roosevelt's campaign to sell World War II is what's needed.
Wayne, I grew up with the media yelling that an ice age was imminent. In the grand scale of earths age it was almost yesterday. Then it was years of global warming. Now it’s that every time there is a storm or unpredictable weather event it’s man made climate change. Heck, a politician just said the last eclipse and northeast earthquake were due to climate change. You want to believe that man has anything to do with the climate changing then go ahead and put windmills and solar panels on your property. But to try and change societies basic sources of power and to some extent survival, using climate models, is beyond lunacy. Everyone knows a model is only as good as the data fed it, and there are prominent scientists who have shown that the data being fed into these climate models are at best inaccurate.
Insurance companies are for-profit organizations. They read the bottom line and make decisions based on that. Cost of materials, prevailing wages, overall cost of repairs and likelihood of payouts are all factors in coverage and pricing.
“Lefty, this discussion/debate is not timely between you and me, I now realize, because you are not persuaded that there's a real problem. So until that more basic issue is resolved, let's shelve debate over solutions for the time being, OK?”
I agree Wayne but for a different reason. You have swallowed hook, line and sinker that climate change is man made and can be artificially manipulated by everyone paying more money to the gov’t. Until you stop believing the propaganda that the far left activists, grant dependent scientists and gov’t propagandists spew and look dispassionately using science and actually listen to scientists with dissenting viewpoints, our discussions are just like yelling in an empty hallway.