We also need to reframe people’s complaints about how “we foolishly subsidize fossil fuels. That money should be going elsewhere.”
If fossil fuels aren’t subsidized, inflation goes up and calls for revolution fill the air. People replace their political leaders with those who will reinstate the subsidies.
For example, who will Americans vote for if the price of gas goes up a dollar or two per gallon this fall?
You know the answer. And that man will not hesitate to destroy the world with his narcissism — we would survive him only by the momentum we have already generated and luck.
Again, the best thing we can do is ALSO subsidize and mandate the transition to EVs. In particular, I think getting delivery trucks to switch will insulate the costs of shipping from increasing gas prices, which will mitigate inflation. (And the Biden administration has been doing this.)
At some point we’ll be able to cut back on fossil fuel subsidies, because they won’t wreck the economy people rely on to pay down their debts (or fill the profound wells of loneliness they experience with activity and consumption).
I’m following every article I can about the costs of EV semi trucks and the rate of their adoption around the world. The ports of LA & Long Beach receive 40% of American imports, so what happens there is very impactful:
Beware ⚠️ There will need to be iron-clad legislation to disallow Oil & Gas bankruptcy and selling off toxic properties to small shell companies, neither of which intend to shutter, dismantle and clean up their billion-dollar global brown fields.
Communities like Denton County TX and countless others are having to shell out millions to restore what absentee and insolvent producers have trashed with rusting rotting pump, tanks, pipes, boilers, refineries and other infrastructure, including leaky wells spewing methane unabated.
While I agree there will be a giant mess to clean up as fossil fuels disappear, I am not holding my breath for timely legislation.
I would like to see taxes levied on fossil fuel STOCK purchases and sales. I think perhaps that would insulate the market from the taxes, so poor people don’t suffer from higher fuel prices.
That tax should funnel money into cleanup efforts like IRA well-capping.
“The vast majority of subsidies are implicit, as environmental costs are often not reflected in prices for fossil fuels, especially for coal and diesel.”
Basically we’re not charging fossil fuel companies for the damage they are causing. And if we were to change that, it wouldn’t be a subsidy we would cut, but rather a tax we would impose.
And of course that would make fossil fuels much more expensive, which would eat up a lot more of people’s income. Not just fuel but everything would be profoundly expensive.
It’s important to acknowledge that throughout history most human activities have not been required to pay for their environmental impact. Not farming. Not construction. Not even war — reparations were primarily calculated for economic impacts.
My impression is that fining companies for pollution really picked up steam in the mid to late 20th century. And it has been consistently under-deployed.
Corporations, as you point out, have been buying governments to prevent such charges.
As far as the sociopathology of fossil fuel executives go, anyone who is not into supporting the cause of those companies will just be replaced by someone else. They simply cannot choose to do anything else. Their jobs are to make money for their investors. That’s it.
Pensions funds or mutual funds will mostly follow whatever will maximize their returns, so they can afford to pay out to those who will ultimately base their retirement income on them.
They do not want to run out of money and potentially get sued.
And, of course, lots of people don’t believe in the afterlife or reincarnation. They live and behave like once they are dead, they won’t know or care what happens. So if human civilization crashes down afterwards, it doesn’t matter. They just want to get as much money and pleasure as they can while they are alive.
And to the extent that they need to think of themselves as good people, they focus their attention on the facts that fossil fuels built modern civilization. Before them, 90% of the population labored in fields to grow food by hand. They choose to see what good they have wrought.
As far as my own outlook is concerned, I feel an echo of this blog. I am riveted by the race between disaster and salvation unfolding, like I am watching Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad.
Except I engage with the plot: I share these articles with family and friends and post them on X.com to make as many people aware of what we need the future to look like as possible. — And to give ideas to legislators for what they can do to accelerate the process.
I won’t willy-nilly start a whole YouTube series. I find it best to share a specific, relevant episode of something. If it’s good, I will naturally be inclined to explore more of it. 👍🏼
Chris, I just made an online query: What tax benefits do fossil fuel industries currently have in the U.S? The reply:
"In the United States, the fossil fuel industry benefits from a variety of tax incentives and subsidies. Here are some key points:
Cost Recovery Provisions: These allow for immediate expensing of exploration and development costs, which is estimated to be around $14.3 billion.
Percentage Depletion: This tax mechanism lets producers deduct a set percentage of the gross income from oil and gas wells or coal mines, which amounts to approximately $10.5 billion.
Tax Credits: There are various tax credits available to the fossil fuel industry, totaling about $8.3 billion1.
Other Provisions: These include additional smaller incentives for production and distribution of oil, coal, and natural gas, adding up to $2 billion.
International Provisions: U.S. companies involved in fossil fuel activities abroad benefit from provisions estimated at $86.2 billion.
Overall, conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year, with 20% allocated to coal and 80% to natural gas and crude oil. These subsidies have been under scrutiny, especially in the context of environmental impact and climate change policies. There have been proposals to eliminate these subsidies, which could potentially save taxpayer dollars and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, it’s important to note that these figures and policies are subject to change and depend on the current administration’s budget and legislative actions."
The managers of fossil fuel production are smart enough to know they are headed for bankruptcy, but they will do everything they can to put it off as long as possible. They put their financial wellbeing before the physical wellbeing of everyone on Earth and mark themselves as sociopaths. In more recent years they have been assisted by the abomination, Citizens United, that gives us Government Of the Money, By the Money, For the Money.
But I recommend the YouTube series, Brighter, by Adam Dorr of RethinkX to "Brighten" your perspective of the not-to-distant future.
This would be good news if renewables were remotely the solution to climate change and ecological overshoot. Put simply, we could achieve a 100% renewable-generated electricity grid and STILL have a massive reliance on fossil fuels. Think fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, shipping, air travel, concrete production, steel production, plastics (I could go on).
Electricity generation itself is only 21.3% of our global energy needs.
No, we have built an entire civilisation on the back of fossil fuels and it will take much more than putting up bunch of solar panels and wind turbines to address the mess that that reliance has caused.
As I understand California’s solar policy change, it was that rooftop solar owners were primarily using the grid to sell their electricity. And with discounts, that meant not only were they not pitching in for the costs of upgrading and maintaining the grid, but other people were paying.
Ostensibly this meant poor people were paying for rich people to get discounted electricity.
This also happened with EV adoption. For a decade the people buying Teslas and getting California’s discount were rich and didn’t need the discount probably anyways.
On a related note, one of the current issues here is similar to the complaining about how energy costs have gone up due to Putin’s war. Lots of cynics point to California’s high energy costs and blame renewables.
California’s electricity prices are high because of the cost of retrofitting its grid to prevent forest fires, plus paying off lawsuits for killing people with utility negligence.
So the change in the law was meant to reduce the cost of electricity for people. No doubt there are also foot-draggers and profit gougers in the mix as well.
I do think batteries and home solar have reduced the threats of blackouts in California, which is an important cost implication of the subsidies.
I think one of the solutions to the conflict described here is for electrical unions to recruit rooftop solar installers into their union, so they’re all on the same side, rather than fighting against one another.
No doubt the owners of rooftop solar installation companies don’t want to deal with the added hassles of union rules and wages, but it should lead to more work for them as they benefit from union advocacy for state policies.
I don’t know what other hurdles unionization faces, except that it’s an added complexity and fee for workers.
And probably a sizable portion of the workers are not American citizens. (This is the importance of the word “International” in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.) It’s likely intimidating for them to rock the boat or engage with an entity that might inadvertently get them deported.
There is a lot riding on winning this race with fate:
“At the moment, we’re on a path to double renewable power by the end of the decade. That’s great. But we need to triple renewable power by the end of the decade to meet even the modest targets we set at Paris for holding the temperature in check. That gap likely defines the human future.”
WHAT IF the rate that atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentration rise does not slow and flat-line as quickly as the scientists and mathematicians predict is necessary?
WHAT IF the excess greenhouse gas presently in the atmosphere don’t get drawn down into the oceans at the current rate due to the increased heat of the ocean and the increasing saturation (aka partial pressure) and therefore atmospheric temperature does not ultimately decline as Dr. Mann, Al Gore and others explain will happen?
WHAT IF our progeny are left with the task of physically removing the excess CO2, CH4 and other accumulated emissions still in the air?
WHAT IF the AMOC actually slows past its tipping point and Greenland ice melt becomes runaway, and small island developing states (SIDS) and coastal megalopolises become inundated by salty seawater, and mass migration leads to global conflicts?
Isn’t the time to transparently and objectively begin researching and strategizing some of the effective nature-based means of cooling as emergency intervention in order to avert the looming irreversible tipping points … while we deal with eliminating the root cause of the rising temperatures?
So far we’ve failed to #RetireRefineries #OnePerWeek as implied by Dr. Hansen’s 2013 admonition to reduce emissions 6%/year. There are ~750 refineries. Counting down to zero is a visual metric to monitor.
BUT THAT ALONE will not begin a cooling of the oceans and atmosphere. Let’s start now to #CoolTheArctic and restore polar albedo before the ice cap completely turns to slush.
I'd like to call your attention to the nonprofit thinktank, RethinkX (https://www.rethinkx.com/). The X in RethinkX represents crossing S curves: ascending for the disrupting technology taking over, and descending for the incumbent disrupted technology moving toward bankruptcy. I think you will find it very interesting. They write extensively of four Disruptions in various stages currently in process: Energy, Transportation, Food, and Labor. Their head of research, Adam Dorr, has written a book as well as a YouTube series of the same name, Brighter, about how these Disruptions will allow mitigation of the centuries of damage from fossil fuels, and then the repair of the biosphere (atmosphere, soil, and oceans). You might start with the YouTube productions.
As I mention in my restack of this article, "Thank you Bill for giving us reason for inspiration and hope." I'm sending links of the article to a number of colleagues and friends, but also, the first to receive the links from me were my grandchildren. We all need encouragement.
🐸 There is nothing called clean energy. You, much like the fossil-fuel lobby share a common devotion, to capitalism and global imperial tyranny. Pathetic graphs which are always pointing up are but related to infinite growth, infinite mining, infinite technological innovation. Infinite extraction and destruction.
🐸 Pathetic this green propaganda, fooling people, in the quest for green paradise. Speed of Change = Speed of Sacrifice. Green Colored A$$holes Of the First World 🐸
India's coal-based power demand at all-time high, government sayshttps://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indias-coal-based-power-demand-all-time-high-government-says-2024-06-19/
This is heartening, thank you. But ... China has been approving new coal plants at the rate of two a week. And coal production continues to increase globally. This tempers any optimism I might feel.
Exponential is a commonly used term for very fast growth and it looks very similar to an S-curve for a while. But S-curve better describes it and enough to top out is the point; we want to see clean energy top out somewhere above an abundant sufficiency. Experience of having rooftop solar in a sunny climate is that enough to top out well above household need is already easy to achieve. A lot of people in places considered resource poor are finding opportunities.
Still learning how to make most effective use of electricity so cheap we (already) give significant amounts away or curtail production is a very welcome kind of problem in my books.
"The kool-aid years" could be Bill & Kingsmill's blog about the wonders of renewable energy filled with fun facts long known by cleantech or Lazard LCOE followers. With no big uglies like grids, building codes, or ongoing free GHG emissions opening doors to ongoing fossil exploration. And zero help for EMDCs. All that time spent on divestment to so little atmospheric effect and now this? Instead of going at the USG failure to preserve the world it created and dominates... so others will follow. Hooray Basalt, CO declares peak emissions!
To both Chris McKee and Bill -- Guys -- wile your patting yourselves on your respective backs::
--- it is acknowledged that RMI is great on churning out numbers and estimates:
--- but they are just that - estimates.
Are you going to try and tell me that your readers - including myself - that you believe that over 1.475 Billon ICE powered cars around the world (not counting any other ICE power vehicle - on land / sea/ and in the air) -- are going to be replaced by battery powered EVs?
Are going going to tell us that you believe that every polluting "heat-sourced" - including Atomic - and Hydro-powered high voltage electric power plant -- around the world - is going to be replaced - and connected up to "renewables":
--- with the shape of the world's existing decrepit power grid systems:
--- that are all "full up" as far as capacity is concerned?
The world is not going to cease to exist by 2050 - or whatever date is set.
But we've already blown by the 1.5 C "tipping point - with great regularity:
--- and RMI's figures DO NOT factor in the estimated tripling of clean electric power demand -- world-wide by 2050.
A couple of points about the Russia bashing, which wasn't necessary for the post. Let's see, point number 1: the USA blows up the Nord Stream ll pipeline that would have supplied Europe with cheap - below market price - natural gas while all along planning for massive new LNG terminals to be constructed that emit tremendous amounts of pollution from start to finish as well as destroying huge swaths of the gulf coast and other lucky shorelines on the east and west coasts. This will be far more pollution than the Nord Stream II would have emitted during its entire lifespan.
Point 2: I probably don't need to state that Russia continues to supply nat gas to Europe through other existing pipelines - though far less than before Russia's attack against the Ukraine in Feb 2022 to stop Ukraine's sanctioned killing of Russian speakers that had been occurring at escalating rates since the US backed coup in 2014. Russia also charges many times less than what Europe has to pay for nat gas to the USA under Europe's existing contracts that Russia continues to abide by. At least some European countries still benefit from this. And, aren't Europeans now paying prices many times higher than what is paid here in the USA for nat gas?
Unfortunately, Russia does not gain from the high oil prices as the sanctions placed by the USA have resulted in Russia having to sell at greatly reduced prices to attract buyers who fear US retaliation if they purchase Russian gas and oil. India and China are doing just fine though due to those price differentials. Russia doesn't need to finance the SMO against Ukraine with oil money. They have a very diverse economy and are now the 4th largest economy in the world.
"Russia's attack against the Ukraine in Feb 2022 to stop Ukraine's sanctioned killing of Russian speakers that had been occurring at escalating rates since the US backed coup in 2014"
Glenn, if you're not a Russian troll you're making a good imitation of one.
We also need to reframe people’s complaints about how “we foolishly subsidize fossil fuels. That money should be going elsewhere.”
If fossil fuels aren’t subsidized, inflation goes up and calls for revolution fill the air. People replace their political leaders with those who will reinstate the subsidies.
For example, who will Americans vote for if the price of gas goes up a dollar or two per gallon this fall?
You know the answer. And that man will not hesitate to destroy the world with his narcissism — we would survive him only by the momentum we have already generated and luck.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/04/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-bradford-delong.html
Again, the best thing we can do is ALSO subsidize and mandate the transition to EVs. In particular, I think getting delivery trucks to switch will insulate the costs of shipping from increasing gas prices, which will mitigate inflation. (And the Biden administration has been doing this.)
https://grist.org/regulation/biden-epa-truck-rule-climate-pollution-heavy-duty-bus-delivery/
At some point we’ll be able to cut back on fossil fuel subsidies, because they won’t wreck the economy people rely on to pay down their debts (or fill the profound wells of loneliness they experience with activity and consumption).
I’m following every article I can about the costs of EV semi trucks and the rate of their adoption around the world. The ports of LA & Long Beach receive 40% of American imports, so what happens there is very impactful:
https://polb.com/port-info/news-and-press/construction-begins-on-truck-charging-depot-at-port-05-15-2024/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/01/18/electric-truck-drivers-vehicles/
Beware ⚠️ There will need to be iron-clad legislation to disallow Oil & Gas bankruptcy and selling off toxic properties to small shell companies, neither of which intend to shutter, dismantle and clean up their billion-dollar global brown fields.
Communities like Denton County TX and countless others are having to shell out millions to restore what absentee and insolvent producers have trashed with rusting rotting pump, tanks, pipes, boilers, refineries and other infrastructure, including leaky wells spewing methane unabated.
While I agree there will be a giant mess to clean up as fossil fuels disappear, I am not holding my breath for timely legislation.
I would like to see taxes levied on fossil fuel STOCK purchases and sales. I think perhaps that would insulate the market from the taxes, so poor people don’t suffer from higher fuel prices.
That tax should funnel money into cleanup efforts like IRA well-capping.
https://www.energy.gov/fecm/funding-notice-ira-mitigating-emissions-marginal-conventional-wells
Thank you Don.
People just responding to headlines see that we “subsidize fossil fuels by $7 trillion per year:”
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion
BUT
“The vast majority of subsidies are implicit, as environmental costs are often not reflected in prices for fossil fuels, especially for coal and diesel.”
Basically we’re not charging fossil fuel companies for the damage they are causing. And if we were to change that, it wouldn’t be a subsidy we would cut, but rather a tax we would impose.
And of course that would make fossil fuels much more expensive, which would eat up a lot more of people’s income. Not just fuel but everything would be profoundly expensive.
It’s important to acknowledge that throughout history most human activities have not been required to pay for their environmental impact. Not farming. Not construction. Not even war — reparations were primarily calculated for economic impacts.
My impression is that fining companies for pollution really picked up steam in the mid to late 20th century. And it has been consistently under-deployed.
Corporations, as you point out, have been buying governments to prevent such charges.
As far as the sociopathology of fossil fuel executives go, anyone who is not into supporting the cause of those companies will just be replaced by someone else. They simply cannot choose to do anything else. Their jobs are to make money for their investors. That’s it.
Pensions funds or mutual funds will mostly follow whatever will maximize their returns, so they can afford to pay out to those who will ultimately base their retirement income on them.
They do not want to run out of money and potentially get sued.
And, of course, lots of people don’t believe in the afterlife or reincarnation. They live and behave like once they are dead, they won’t know or care what happens. So if human civilization crashes down afterwards, it doesn’t matter. They just want to get as much money and pleasure as they can while they are alive.
And to the extent that they need to think of themselves as good people, they focus their attention on the facts that fossil fuels built modern civilization. Before them, 90% of the population labored in fields to grow food by hand. They choose to see what good they have wrought.
As far as my own outlook is concerned, I feel an echo of this blog. I am riveted by the race between disaster and salvation unfolding, like I am watching Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad.
Except I engage with the plot: I share these articles with family and friends and post them on X.com to make as many people aware of what we need the future to look like as possible. — And to give ideas to legislators for what they can do to accelerate the process.
I won’t willy-nilly start a whole YouTube series. I find it best to share a specific, relevant episode of something. If it’s good, I will naturally be inclined to explore more of it. 👍🏼
Chris, I just made an online query: What tax benefits do fossil fuel industries currently have in the U.S? The reply:
"In the United States, the fossil fuel industry benefits from a variety of tax incentives and subsidies. Here are some key points:
Cost Recovery Provisions: These allow for immediate expensing of exploration and development costs, which is estimated to be around $14.3 billion.
Percentage Depletion: This tax mechanism lets producers deduct a set percentage of the gross income from oil and gas wells or coal mines, which amounts to approximately $10.5 billion.
Tax Credits: There are various tax credits available to the fossil fuel industry, totaling about $8.3 billion1.
Other Provisions: These include additional smaller incentives for production and distribution of oil, coal, and natural gas, adding up to $2 billion.
International Provisions: U.S. companies involved in fossil fuel activities abroad benefit from provisions estimated at $86.2 billion.
Overall, conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year, with 20% allocated to coal and 80% to natural gas and crude oil. These subsidies have been under scrutiny, especially in the context of environmental impact and climate change policies. There have been proposals to eliminate these subsidies, which could potentially save taxpayer dollars and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, it’s important to note that these figures and policies are subject to change and depend on the current administration’s budget and legislative actions."
The managers of fossil fuel production are smart enough to know they are headed for bankruptcy, but they will do everything they can to put it off as long as possible. They put their financial wellbeing before the physical wellbeing of everyone on Earth and mark themselves as sociopaths. In more recent years they have been assisted by the abomination, Citizens United, that gives us Government Of the Money, By the Money, For the Money.
But I recommend the YouTube series, Brighter, by Adam Dorr of RethinkX to "Brighten" your perspective of the not-to-distant future.
This would be good news if renewables were remotely the solution to climate change and ecological overshoot. Put simply, we could achieve a 100% renewable-generated electricity grid and STILL have a massive reliance on fossil fuels. Think fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, shipping, air travel, concrete production, steel production, plastics (I could go on).
Electricity generation itself is only 21.3% of our global energy needs.
No, we have built an entire civilisation on the back of fossil fuels and it will take much more than putting up bunch of solar panels and wind turbines to address the mess that that reliance has caused.
As I understand California’s solar policy change, it was that rooftop solar owners were primarily using the grid to sell their electricity. And with discounts, that meant not only were they not pitching in for the costs of upgrading and maintaining the grid, but other people were paying.
Ostensibly this meant poor people were paying for rich people to get discounted electricity.
This also happened with EV adoption. For a decade the people buying Teslas and getting California’s discount were rich and didn’t need the discount probably anyways.
On a related note, one of the current issues here is similar to the complaining about how energy costs have gone up due to Putin’s war. Lots of cynics point to California’s high energy costs and blame renewables.
California’s electricity prices are high because of the cost of retrofitting its grid to prevent forest fires, plus paying off lawsuits for killing people with utility negligence.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-golden-age-of-renewables-is-beginning-and-california-is-leading-the-way/
So the change in the law was meant to reduce the cost of electricity for people. No doubt there are also foot-draggers and profit gougers in the mix as well.
thank you, especially for the Sci Am link. i think Sammy Roth at the LA Times has been the best writer on the state's rooftop solar policies; this might be of interest https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-12-14/column-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-rooftop-solar-boiling-point
Thanks! I read this article.
I do think batteries and home solar have reduced the threats of blackouts in California, which is an important cost implication of the subsidies.
I think one of the solutions to the conflict described here is for electrical unions to recruit rooftop solar installers into their union, so they’re all on the same side, rather than fighting against one another.
No doubt the owners of rooftop solar installation companies don’t want to deal with the added hassles of union rules and wages, but it should lead to more work for them as they benefit from union advocacy for state policies.
I don’t know what other hurdles unionization faces, except that it’s an added complexity and fee for workers.
And probably a sizable portion of the workers are not American citizens. (This is the importance of the word “International” in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.) It’s likely intimidating for them to rock the boat or engage with an entity that might inadvertently get them deported.
There is a lot riding on winning this race with fate:
“At the moment, we’re on a path to double renewable power by the end of the decade. That’s great. But we need to triple renewable power by the end of the decade to meet even the modest targets we set at Paris for holding the temperature in check. That gap likely defines the human future.”
WHAT IF the rate that atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentration rise does not slow and flat-line as quickly as the scientists and mathematicians predict is necessary?
WHAT IF the excess greenhouse gas presently in the atmosphere don’t get drawn down into the oceans at the current rate due to the increased heat of the ocean and the increasing saturation (aka partial pressure) and therefore atmospheric temperature does not ultimately decline as Dr. Mann, Al Gore and others explain will happen?
WHAT IF our progeny are left with the task of physically removing the excess CO2, CH4 and other accumulated emissions still in the air?
WHAT IF the AMOC actually slows past its tipping point and Greenland ice melt becomes runaway, and small island developing states (SIDS) and coastal megalopolises become inundated by salty seawater, and mass migration leads to global conflicts?
Isn’t the time to transparently and objectively begin researching and strategizing some of the effective nature-based means of cooling as emergency intervention in order to avert the looming irreversible tipping points … while we deal with eliminating the root cause of the rising temperatures?
So far we’ve failed to #RetireRefineries #OnePerWeek as implied by Dr. Hansen’s 2013 admonition to reduce emissions 6%/year. There are ~750 refineries. Counting down to zero is a visual metric to monitor.
BUT THAT ALONE will not begin a cooling of the oceans and atmosphere. Let’s start now to #CoolTheArctic and restore polar albedo before the ice cap completely turns to slush.
Bill,
I'd like to call your attention to the nonprofit thinktank, RethinkX (https://www.rethinkx.com/). The X in RethinkX represents crossing S curves: ascending for the disrupting technology taking over, and descending for the incumbent disrupted technology moving toward bankruptcy. I think you will find it very interesting. They write extensively of four Disruptions in various stages currently in process: Energy, Transportation, Food, and Labor. Their head of research, Adam Dorr, has written a book as well as a YouTube series of the same name, Brighter, about how these Disruptions will allow mitigation of the centuries of damage from fossil fuels, and then the repair of the biosphere (atmosphere, soil, and oceans). You might start with the YouTube productions.
Thank you
Thanks for this info! I took a look and signed up for their newsletter.
As I mention in my restack of this article, "Thank you Bill for giving us reason for inspiration and hope." I'm sending links of the article to a number of colleagues and friends, but also, the first to receive the links from me were my grandchildren. We all need encouragement.
"proje?cts ravaging the Amazon and the people who have made their homes there for eons"
Indeed, the Americas and Amozonia were populated by humans not very long ago.
🐸 There is nothing called clean energy. You, much like the fossil-fuel lobby share a common devotion, to capitalism and global imperial tyranny. Pathetic graphs which are always pointing up are but related to infinite growth, infinite mining, infinite technological innovation. Infinite extraction and destruction.
🐸 Pathetic this green propaganda, fooling people, in the quest for green paradise. Speed of Change = Speed of Sacrifice. Green Colored A$$holes Of the First World 🐸
India's coal-based power demand at all-time high, government sayshttps://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indias-coal-based-power-demand-all-time-high-government-says-2024-06-19/
This is heartening, thank you. But ... China has been approving new coal plants at the rate of two a week. And coal production continues to increase globally. This tempers any optimism I might feel.
Bill, I would love to hear your take on Brett Christophers' book "The Price is Wrong." where you might agree and where you think he's got it wrong.
i think it's very smart. i've written about it some for example here https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/2100-and-before
Exponential is a commonly used term for very fast growth and it looks very similar to an S-curve for a while. But S-curve better describes it and enough to top out is the point; we want to see clean energy top out somewhere above an abundant sufficiency. Experience of having rooftop solar in a sunny climate is that enough to top out well above household need is already easy to achieve. A lot of people in places considered resource poor are finding opportunities.
Still learning how to make most effective use of electricity so cheap we (already) give significant amounts away or curtail production is a very welcome kind of problem in my books.
"The kool-aid years" could be Bill & Kingsmill's blog about the wonders of renewable energy filled with fun facts long known by cleantech or Lazard LCOE followers. With no big uglies like grids, building codes, or ongoing free GHG emissions opening doors to ongoing fossil exploration. And zero help for EMDCs. All that time spent on divestment to so little atmospheric effect and now this? Instead of going at the USG failure to preserve the world it created and dominates... so others will follow. Hooray Basalt, CO declares peak emissions!
Copper has not been relatively stable and it’s going to be a problem.
To both Chris McKee and Bill -- Guys -- wile your patting yourselves on your respective backs::
--- it is acknowledged that RMI is great on churning out numbers and estimates:
--- but they are just that - estimates.
Are you going to try and tell me that your readers - including myself - that you believe that over 1.475 Billon ICE powered cars around the world (not counting any other ICE power vehicle - on land / sea/ and in the air) -- are going to be replaced by battery powered EVs?
Are going going to tell us that you believe that every polluting "heat-sourced" - including Atomic - and Hydro-powered high voltage electric power plant -- around the world - is going to be replaced - and connected up to "renewables":
--- with the shape of the world's existing decrepit power grid systems:
--- that are all "full up" as far as capacity is concerned?
The world is not going to cease to exist by 2050 - or whatever date is set.
But we've already blown by the 1.5 C "tipping point - with great regularity:
--- and RMI's figures DO NOT factor in the estimated tripling of clean electric power demand -- world-wide by 2050.
Get a grip on reality.
A couple of points about the Russia bashing, which wasn't necessary for the post. Let's see, point number 1: the USA blows up the Nord Stream ll pipeline that would have supplied Europe with cheap - below market price - natural gas while all along planning for massive new LNG terminals to be constructed that emit tremendous amounts of pollution from start to finish as well as destroying huge swaths of the gulf coast and other lucky shorelines on the east and west coasts. This will be far more pollution than the Nord Stream II would have emitted during its entire lifespan.
Point 2: I probably don't need to state that Russia continues to supply nat gas to Europe through other existing pipelines - though far less than before Russia's attack against the Ukraine in Feb 2022 to stop Ukraine's sanctioned killing of Russian speakers that had been occurring at escalating rates since the US backed coup in 2014. Russia also charges many times less than what Europe has to pay for nat gas to the USA under Europe's existing contracts that Russia continues to abide by. At least some European countries still benefit from this. And, aren't Europeans now paying prices many times higher than what is paid here in the USA for nat gas?
Unfortunately, Russia does not gain from the high oil prices as the sanctions placed by the USA have resulted in Russia having to sell at greatly reduced prices to attract buyers who fear US retaliation if they purchase Russian gas and oil. India and China are doing just fine though due to those price differentials. Russia doesn't need to finance the SMO against Ukraine with oil money. They have a very diverse economy and are now the 4th largest economy in the world.
I could go one; but, you get the drift I hope.
"Russia's attack against the Ukraine in Feb 2022 to stop Ukraine's sanctioned killing of Russian speakers that had been occurring at escalating rates since the US backed coup in 2014"
Glenn, if you're not a Russian troll you're making a good imitation of one.