Yes but. Paul’s description of what to do (basically, Biden’s IRA - which significantly was technology agnostic) still suffered from the same fatal flaw (not by the Prof but by the politicians): to tell the truth to the people. Instead of fully engaging with us - that this is long-term, that it is existential (& don’t use such esoteric words), that there will be many benefits as well as costs, that to do nothing is not an option - they wimped, and lied to us, and taxed us by stealth to subsidize renewables, which help with emissions but are only a part-solution. And we the people feel this intuitively whether we are well-informed or actively ignorant, and resent it. Result? Yet more loss of faith in government and institutions (aka the bureaucracy that enforces the politicians diktats such as imposing solar and wind farms on farmers and in beautiful countryside). It makes an easy target for the “bad actors” who want to frustrate any action - fossil fuel producers; MAGA fanatics. And all this taxation, all this subsidy, all this EFFORT is not going to get us anywhere close to their declared goals. If this is existential - and it is - it requires a whole-of-society multi-generational effort, and the first step, the essential steps, are to level with the people and to bring us with them, not lie to us.
A large part of the problem is that there is too much money in politics. Special interest groups, such as the fossil energy group, gun industry, right-wing pseudo religious, & billionaires who want tax breaks, unite to serve their special interests via election spending.
Their focus is the short term, ignoring the long-term costs of climate change.
Any true fiscal conservative would be strongly in favour of slowing or stopping climate change. But the major costs & evident results are decades away.
Agree, Andre. There are so many places to go to fix the system. One of the first is to legislate to overturn Citizens United, and severely limit the amount of money in politics. I’d also address the electoral system by making Voting Day a public holiday (or by moving it to a Saturday); putting all primaries on the same day, which would be no more than 90 days before the election; introducing ranked choice voting for all offices; and making voting compulsory (citizenship is a duty as well as a privilege). I would introduce legislation “clarifying” the Second Amendment by taking it back to its original meaning so that even Clarence Thomas couldn’t object: guns shall be what they were in 1780 - single shot (were there even revolvers then?). It might be a stretch to say the long guns have you been muzzle-loaded!
We are the most educated Americans in history and purposefully being kept ignorant. There has always been some propaganda, but it was always to build up the country, or at least some segment of it (even at the expense of another), but this hatred of our own country is new. Not even during the Vietnam demonstrations and civil rights do I remember this kind of hate of the country itself. Maybe it’s shame instead of hate. It’s just different. I feel like we have been manipulated and still are. On purpose. Shame. Anger. Hate. I don’t think this is a good recipe for a population.
True, but do you take people where they are (like the Republicans have even if they told them lies), or refuse to roll out the truth in any form and insist people just “ find it themselves” because it’s widely available if you “care” and lose the damn election and the democracy?
Though I am an atheist I cannot agree with your statement because it generalizes. consider the official position of the Catholic Church as articulated by Pope Francis and affirmed by Popo Leo.
Were you to have referred to religious fundamentalists I'd be in complete agreement.
I said it is a vehicle for greed and spite, meaning it is used by some people for that purpose. That does not mean that is it's sole purpose, or even its primary purpose.
It wasn't claimed that "greed and spite" were it's "sole purpose" or "primary purpose."
Intent is not the equivalent of consequence, result, actions and etc., just as the 'Ends don't justify the means' nor even necessarily accord with them.
In the case of religion, the intent is and always has been: "control" and indoctrination and the results have been appalling and remain so. That does not negate that some of those conditioned or persuaded to adopt a religious belief system are not capable of positive notions and behaviour as well.
I may have been responding to a comment that was not a response to me, but to someone else in the chain. When the chain gets long enough, it can be hard to see who is responding to whom. But think you for applying such keen intellectual rigor to this entire discussion. I hope others appreciate it as much as I do. Of course, to state categorically that the intent of religion is control, full stop, is pretty silly. Whose intent are we talking about? While there have been many religious and political leaders who have used religion for precisely that purpose, there are undoubtedly many who have viewed it as a source of social good. I am not religious and am very skeptical of religion generally, but I would not paint with that broad a brush.
I certainly agree that the way that responses are shown in the chain on this platform can be unhelpful.
I thank you for what seems a somewhat back-handed compliment re "keen intellectual rigor", given that you go on to to label what I said as "pretty silly", though I suppose that it is "pretty" is some mitigation of the "silly" part.
As it is, I also agree that I was in error to make an absolute statement when I have often acknowledged or suggested to others that such generalisations are more often than not, invalid. However, again, in your response you conflate individuals with a belief system and "views" as evidence. Of course, neither represent valid evidence of other than that those who have not used religion according to its intent or viewed it in a particular way, have done just that.
As, I believe, is the case with many others, you "would not paint with religion with that broad a brush" as do I. O.k., I accept that such is your opinion but it is not mine and I suggest that the evidence of both its history and it's doctrine and tenets support my view.
However, I thank you for being willing to respond to me in a civil and open way, regardless of any intended or accidental satirical implication as to my "intellectual rigor." I know that my views are unacceptable to many and consider that I well understand why that should be so, not least because indoctrination to social norms is particularly insidious and the churches have long held extremely strong sway in most, if not all, societies in establishing and maintaining those social norms. However, in my own defence, may I point out that at least my views are the result of over 60 years of study of *religions*, religion as a concept and religious behaviours and effects on human relationships and conduct. So, though I realise that such is probably only scratching the surface of any thorough understanding, I do at least have a view based on more than simply peer acceptance of socialised 'norms' and cursory views.
The Catholic church is as complicit in perfidy as are virtually all others, in fact, it is probably worse. The Vatican is just as bad, for example towards and at the end of WWII it assisted many leading German culprits to escape.
The Popes have been no better than other religious leaders.
So, yes, Pope Francis may have been a good guy and so may be Pope Leo. There will always be individual exceptions but in many cases they prove the generalisation rather than invalidating it.
In any case, your justification conflates individuals with institutions and ideology, i.e. not like with like, therefore it is invalid.
There is a big difference between what some individuals in an institution (such as the Catholic church) have done and the institution itself. During WW2 there were individuals on both side of the spectrum. Many took risks to save jews, others helped war criminals escape.
Religion’s always been a tricky subject. I’ve never believed in the guy in the sky—but what really gets me is how often organized religion shows up on the wrong side of history. Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials… now voter suppression and book bans. It's like they can't resist.
It has often been that; it frequently devolves into that. In that regard it is like governments. But at hearth were invented, and sometimes even change, to help even the lowest among us. For this very reason they are also very appealing to scoundrels and authoritarians.
How do you come to your understanding or expression of why religions were invented? There is no evidence that such is the case and certainly their doctrines and behaviour have generally been quite the opposite and remain so.
Indeed, if one examines the 'holy' or 'central' texts of most religions they have in common, war and the favouring of one group by a deity, even with that deity's encouragement, (or command), and supposed help to defeat other groups.
It is far more likely that religions came about because early human beings were attempting to understanding natural phenomena that they couldn't explain but only experience or witness with wonder. It is not surprising that some chose to use this to control others, after all, that appears to be a common characteristic of humanity.
In 1978, three years before he took office, in a speech to the Conservation Foundation in Dallas, Watt called environmentalists “the greatest threat to the ecology of the West,” and said they were unconcerned about “the quality of life for mankind.” Watt was a dispensationalist, an evangelical strain with a strong emphasis on the Second Coming of Jesus and the Rapture.
And they really want to stick the rest of us, with a toxic stew on the planet. Which is very short-sighted of them because that rapture crap is nothing but biblical fan-fiction.
Many religionists believe the Bible tells them that God gave Man dominion over the Earth to use as Man sees fit. They see attempts to curb consumption of resources and limit pollution as the work of the Devil, who is, as they believe, a communist. They see it as the sinning liberals trying to take power. Cray and cray.
Yes, religion has been hijacked by many bad actors and charlatans for political purposes, as well as for greed and profit. This should be obvious to anyone paying attention. And yet, our tax policy has allowed this politicization of religion to go unchecked, which should be disqualifying for tax exempt purposes, because it is a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. So, we are effectively subsidizing this deceptive and corrupt behavior. I blame both the Supreme (-ly corrupt) Court's egregious rulings for this, as well as Republicans in Congress and the Executive Branch (G. W. Bush and Reagan) who have perverted our tax policies by allowing these frauds "charitable", non-profit status. When Obama tried to investigate this and reign it in, Republicans and "conservatives" went nuts and attacked him. and then tried to flip the script. The media, of course, went along with this ruse. Consequently, it has metastasized and gotten much worse since then. And here we are, now, with the climate crisis raging and posing an existential threat to us all.
Aside from pros like Trump, most conservatives are hanging out near the bottom of the income ladder. They’re not voting for money—they’re voting for pride, spite, and the God-given right to lose health insurance with their heads held high.
Yes, I agree, suckers, and I wonder why. My republican friends write and confuse me. I write about it to releve my frustration: JosephZeigler.substack.com
I would add a 4th kind, the tech bros and "libertarians" (LINOs) who want total freedom (not liberty, which is different) to do whatever they want to whomever they want, whenever then want...and to get government subsidies in the process. Some of these also fall into your first category, i.e., the billionaire Silicon Valley 'broligarchs'.
Yes—heads held high is an important if not key factor among lie information voters. A sense of independence and pride that we have disdained now to our regret. Guys who worked two minimum wage jobs to provide for their families rather than lose their self esteem by taking welfare. And failing that, dying deaths of despair.
I'd say they're neck and neck. Trumpty Dumpty's Qatari "palace in the sky" is pure greed. His immigration policy OTOH is pure spite. All his policies have varying blends of both.
Except he doesn't call it spite, he calls it retribution and makes no bones about seeking it. His mass firings of lawyers and FBI agents who worked on investigating Jan 6 and punishing entire law firms for have defending people he imagines have attacked. He happily calls this retribution, which is, of course, his euphemism for spit. He believes only a weak and stupid fool would not take retribution on his enemies, i.e. people who don't bow down in reverence to his every utterance, whenever he gets the chance. Not to do so would be unmanly and
To understand why we are doomed, whether by climate change or a host of other existential slipknots we have engineered for ourselves, is simple. Evolution works by acting upon the various traits and abilities represented within a species. We are quick to deny the worst traits that humans exhibit, preferring to believe they are aberrant behavior that can't possibly fit with the image of "what humans are". But history is demonstrating, as it always has, that these malignancies are not going away despite our best efforts. In fact, now that we have come to the threshold where evolution truly takes the wheel and drastically winnows us out, our most retrograde tendencies rush forward. What kind of human, if any, will come out the other side of a future full of cataclysmic change? Evolution is a lot more random than we would hope.
Sorry, but I feel it's important to remind us all that denial of the basic scientific evidence is not a real option. There has long been a debate in whether such a stark approach causes people to shut down, and certainly that's a fair concern. Even many of the scientists involved with climate study (many of whom are now jobless) have a very hard time accepting the direction we are heading. I can only say for myself it's been a long effort to acknowledge that this is how the world works.
Unfortunately, the dooming of civilization may have already happened with Trump’s election itself. It’s become almost impossible for me to focus on any other worthy issue than our democracy.
The decisions we make in this decade will determine Earth's climate for the next 10,000 years. Political predictions are of little value; geophysical predictions are solid. We know for certain that if we persist with current policies, there will be unspeakable harm far into the future. So it is good that Krugman draws attention to climate change. That said, it's ALSO correct to focus now on the threat to democracy. The climate problem cannot be solved without breaking the excessive power of corporations and billionaires, who are deliberately preventing us from doing what we need to do.
The climate problem isn't a problem; it is a predicament (an unpleasant situation). James Hansen, an American climatologist, has written a paper recently that suggests +4C is locked in this century and +10C is locked in when all feedback loops are settled.
Hansen's paper is controversial and has not gained wide acceptance within the scientific community, so it should not be assumed correct at the moment. That said, we are currently on a path to well ovet 2C heating, and given the reversal of US policy it will be closer to 3C. That's disastrous enough.
What part of the paper did you find controversial or who is saying the paper is controversial?
Hansen claims global warming accelerated after 2010 from 0.18C to 0.27C per decade. If we are 1.5C over baseline today then in 80 years we will be 4.2C over baseline.
Are you arguing the +0.27C per decade is wrong because we can see empirically that is true for the last decade.
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms,..." -George Orwell
I know you believe you'll be long gone before any of this affects you, but I wouldn't make too many assumptions.
How many of said scientists are climatologists? Should one accept the criticism of germ theory leveled by an astrophysicist? Further, there are cranks and fools in every field including every field of science. If you search hard enough you can find biologists who subscribe to young earth creationism.
Regrettably krugman doesn’t mention hydro as a renewable. Run of the river hydro is environmentally friendly as there is no dam and therefore no reservoir.
Bingo. All the things we should be working on: climate change, universal healthcare, bloated military expenditures, returning the tax system to something at least resembling the 70s tax tables, and on and on, have taken a back seat to the current emergency.
We can't even argue about the specifics of any of these things, because the news cycle is inundated every day with multiple inanities and cruelties of a mad king.
Correcting the core mistake of electing Trump isn't on the horizon. The same people who voted for him are mostly still shrugging their shoulders at all the mayhem.
How true! Those of us who realize that autocracies come in various flavors, as well as happening over varying time frames, recognize since the U.S. is sadly in the midst of becoming one, all other issues, no matter how critical, become subsumed into
the larger crisis of keeping the ship of democracy afloat. Even China, a recognized autocracy, has not thrown out science or is fighting climate change. Here in the U.S. our burgeoning autocracy has decided to fight both. What a combination!
It's time maybe, and maybe past time to resurrect the concept of cold-blooded evil, the root of which is cold-blooded greed and a stunning disregard for life itself. That many uber wealthy technocrats and their cohort have already abandoned not only the general population of this country but the future of earth itself is indicated by their fantasies of abandoning it in favor of mars, over the long term. They are already siloing themselves in the expectation of catastrophe, which they somehow think they are gifted and rich enough to thereby avoid. And they appear to 'own' not the libs, but the entire GOP and elements of the Democratic power structure as well. Only if we start to pull our heads out of our a**es and organize to push back will we have any chance of defeating them and saving ourselves. Not hyperbole.
We are living with a government that has already put in place policies that will kill 25 million people in the near future and incalculable more beyond. Yet some scream at the impropriety of Hiter comparisons. True, Hitler murdered fewer people in camps (and battlefields) not in Africa (but later around the globe as climate catastrophe advances), so observation and counting is not so apparent to our media
Yep. This stuff is not theoretical. You can go back a couple of decades and look at certain regions of Louisiana where petrochemical companies have totally destroyed the ecosystems and the health of the workers at their factories, who die of cancer at astonishing rates, yet continued to work and live in close proximity to the plants. There was a best seller published about this two or three years ago. All this is well documented. Wish I could remember the title. Maybe you could look it up. Many communities in West Virginia have been decimated by petrochemical companies. I have seen them with my own eyes. Ditto here in PA, where around 15 miles from me an entire formerly prosperous town is being destroyed by frackers. And all this is to overlook the death of nonhuman species by the thousands. Whole species, plant and animal. These polluters have NO conscience, none.
Their reality and ours clearly differs. Unless some method can be developed to adjust everyone’s lenses to see the same world, the parable of Babel still pertains. But who will be doing the adjustment?
Adjustment can be accomplished, sometimes, with enough time. But, as a former therapist I can tell you that most of the public communications of 'these guys' sounds as narcissistic and arrogant as Trump's, if not as sloppy. People with character disorders are notoriously hard if not impossible to treat clinically, as they think they're smarter than anyone, especially the therapist, and have no motivation for change. Add to that the fact of their wealth and the influence it buys, and you can fuggidaboudit. Better we somehow manage to corral and stop them from enacting their worst fantasies. How? Unfortunately we will need to start electing better, braver, independent representatives who will work hard to do this via the laws and federal + state law enforcement. A tall order, I know. But maybe our only hope.
Accepting the idea of evil requires the idea of good. There are a lot of good ideas posted here. The professor has exhibited the progress made since the first earth day and publication of the "Whole Earth Catalogue". The defenders of incandescent light bulbs will succumb to the second law of thermodynamics on that you can rely. Put on a happy face. The world will always welcome a better idea if they don't steal it first.
Maybe in the long run, Al. And I hope you're right. But at present our state of disorganization mitigates against the effectiveness of our many (and there are many) good ideas. I hope that, after an I think now inevitable period of chaos, those good ideas will prevail. And I'll give it my all, whatever comes.
I don't believe that anti-intellectualism will win the day, as the force of persuasion and logic, especially when accompanied by demonstrable advantages in the near term will win out every time. Unless, by intellectualism you mean the stereotype academic liberal too fond of their own opinions to be bothered translating them into something of pragmatic benefit. Until Trump, and outside of maybe states like Alabama, which after all elected Tommy Tuberville to the senate, anti-intellectuals were not a force to be reckoned with, as they are largely low-propensity voters. And as for intellectuals, in case you think I'm one, this ol' gal came up the hard way, put herself through college and grad school, worked as a waitress like AOC and was a teen mother to boot. But reading is good, thinking is better, and caring is best of all.
Yes in the long run we'll all be dead but in the mean time in between time we can recognize change is afoot. Newton's equal and opposite reaction has found ways to express itself. The free fusion furnace that also powers the wind has caught our fleeting attention. The advantages are too great to ignore.
I am probably closer to dying than you or many of the commentators here are, but I am with Omar Khyam, the poet and mathematician who stated he wished to be like a rose, with each and every seed in his being scattered to the wind with his very last breath. And yes, the world has always been composed of opposing forces, which might be viewed at a necessary element in the evolutionary process. I wish the advantages really were too great to ignore, but unfortunately if they can't be readily turned into profit, there are those forces out there that will try to cover them over lest they lose their current advantages.
From engineering, manufacturing and economic knowledge, you will realize all prices for everything, even service economy disciplines, are controlled by fossil fuels prices. Every price is determined by oil, gas and coal prices. The switch from costly continuing use of fossil fuels to capturing free solar, wind and water energy would make Wall Street collapse. That's why Trump was appointed and continues to fight free energy. Ironically, the famous father of AC electricity, Nikolai Tesla promised free energy over a hundred years ago. He lit a bank of light bulbs in Colorado with a wireless generator twenty miles away. He invented AC electric transmission and motors. America ruined him. He died penniless in a Manhattan hotel.
And more: once people are free from paying energy (because either they can produce it by themselves or buy it at very low price) they are basically free from the "top".
So, what is the answer from the elite? Just add a layer of mass control with AI!
We really have to fight this (peaceful) war for our freedom, until the end.
However, energy companies were positioning themselves to profit from other forms of energy. Their position was it's going to happen but we need to transition and oil will have a place for a long time. I think a lot of the problem lies with Trump himself. He's the messiah and he's stuck in the 1960s like so many old boomers.
I think there will be progress in climate change (a Trump induced recession should slow things down) but it will be slower and less effective. Some improvements are hard to stop. Mini-split heat pumps are reasonable in price and very efficient. Word gets around.
GOP doesn't care about jobs at all. Kristi Noem ended the FEMA grants to her home state of South Dakota, where she served as governor. She also refused Medicaid expansion, instead sent the money back to DC. When they want to build a pipeline, all the tv talk is jobs jobs jobs, want to build a wind farm, all tv talk is cost cost cost.
I don't know about TV, since I haven't watched it in about 45 years, but here in New Jersey, all the talk is "Save our Coasts!" The opponents feel that the turbines are ugly. New York is planning an offshore farm that will be over the horizon. They're ok with that one; they won't be able to see it.
Fossil Fuels cost a lot of money for many years. Wind, Solar, and water power are free once you bought the equipment. Solar panels last decades. That's free energy for decades.
Except that you pay the acquisition loan off for 10-20 years. So in concept, yes, pay “once” and it’s free. In practice, it’s doesn’t feel free to the homeowner, or the ratepayers who are paying for the capital to build the solar farm. It’s not free when the roof leaks under a faulty installation, or wires corrode (I say this from experience). I say all of this as a Solar owner, and one who has had it for a decade, where it covers 90+% of my household needs.
I've had rooftop solar for over a decade, on two houses in two different states. I've never had to call for service. The solar system just works; at least as well or better than any other major household appliance.
In both cases the only costs to my local utilities for me to have solar wer a new net-metering meters and signing off on some minor paperwork. That's it. Solar generating systems provide avoided costs to utilities in that they aren't pushed by demand to build new generating plants. Every home with solar power accounts for some tiny fraction of that demand reduction, even more so with newer systems incorporating storage batteries.
The costs of fueling solar and wind are zero and will always be zero and always available. Those are big items when looking at cradle-to-grave cost comparisons of energy generating systems.
that's good to hear. sincerely glad it's the case. In our case, the contract had remove and replace the solar panels cost of $500 (really old contract before the companies woke up to the actual costs); the new ones are more like $250+ per panel. It would have been close to $10K in costs on a modern contract. I believe the answer lies in ground mounted community solar or ground mounted commercial/utility based, where the LCOE is a lot cheaper and one can avoid these issues. Our issue's root cause was a bad "puck" design to mount the rails to the asphalt roof. My guess (confirmed by the working crews) is that the company was going to replace a lot of these as it was more of a consistent issue 10 years in, vs. a one-off type thing. I agree on the "Fueling is free" point, but the concept of pay once and they are "free" does not reflect perceived reality; loans, interest, and potential maintenance, although minimal, make it a risky proposition. In addition the solar sales industry already has a shady reputation; it’s not going to get better as incentives dry up and sales has to push harder. Again, eliminating those risks via shared solar is the solution I would recommend. It may not sound it, but I am a big renewable advocate. I am just trying to counter the free and easy perception of rooftop solar being a universally cheap, and simple solution. I just happen to back ground mounted commercial sized solutions that strip off supply contracts from fossil fuel based electricity.
My first system's panels were mounted on a standing seam metal roof wherein the mounts were clamped to the standing seam, no roof penetration. My current home installation was already on the asphalt shingle roof when we purchased this home. It was installed in 2017 and so far, knock on silicon, it has been free of issues.
There is no doubt that home solar has high upfront costs. Choose a reputable installer and try to synchronize your roofing lifetime with the solar panel lifetime expectations. Not many commonly used roofing materials will last as long as the useful lifetime of solar panels unfortunately, and both exceed the average number of years owners will reside in the same home.
Correct. Ideally large scale solar arrays or shared smaller arrays mounted on the ground are probably easier to maintain in the long term. Still everything has a life cycle cost and will need to be repladed.
Finding a reputable solar dealer or one that is even likely to remain in business for a while is going to be challenging. When I got quotes for solar 10 years ago the sales people pulled out all sorts of sales tricks such as presenting the proposal in person and then saying if I decide TODAY they would give me a much bigger discount. I kicked the salesperson out for pulling those high pressure sales tricks.
From a cost of installation and efficiency perspective larger installations will win over rooftops. The problem in my area (very Red) is finding sites to build things like community solar or larger. People complain about their views changing from field and forest to shiny panels. Or, shifting shrinking productive agricultural lands to an industrial use.
Good that you gave them the boot. As a former customer (we moved to VA) I still think very highly of Revision Energy. They are based in Maine but have expanded into MA and NH, and perhaps beyond. Employee owned, in business since at least 2005, they grow their inhouse workforce by hosting an electrician's apprenticeship program. I know it sounds like advertising but I have no relationship with them and no longer live in the area they service.
You can buy a big rooftop solar system for about the cost of a cheap used car or a third the cost of a new car. Nearly every homeowner can afford solar.
My ten year old solar panels haven't needed any repairs or maintenance yet. And every time electric rates go up, my investment return gets better.
Agree on the price. It’s a tough sell when nearly over a third of the US households claim that they can’t afford an unexpected $400 expense. That’s why I’d advocate just pushing commercial sized solar/wind, and push from that end. That way, you also pick up non-owners too.
So true! I see this all the time in PA. The hypocrisy is staggering! Pennsylvania, long known as the 'Texas of the East' is largely controlled by the fossil fuel, especially fracking, industry. Republicans, who control the state Senate (and until a few years ago, the state House, also) get massive and unlimited campaign "donations" from and lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, particularly from the Marcellus Shale Coalition. Also, partisan GOP gerrymandering is still a big problem here in "Pennsyltucky", even though we have made some halting progress in recent years, but still not enough.
So I took my 2-door Jeep Wrangler to the dealer for annual service this month. They had an $84K Wagoneer and a $75K RAM pickup in the showroom. Sure, both were loaded with options. There wasn't a new 2-door Wrangler on the lot.
When I last looked into solar I was surprised at how expensive it was. Supposedly the cost had dropped dramatically. When I looked into it 20 years ago it was about 30K and it was 30-40K now. It would have taken 16 years to pay off. We'll be dead by then.
I am going to see what I can get at a fixed amount.
It's about $3 per watt, or a bit less, depending on your location in the US. In Australia, it's about $1 per watt.
If you know how many kilowatt hours you use in a year, you can use that information to figure out how large a system you need to cover your need. In Maine, with a south exposure, I get about 7000-7500 kwh per year with a 6.6 kW system.
Oil, coal, and gas users pay for those things as well, the costs are just blended in with your bill, along with hefty state guaranteed profits. With renewables, you keep what you pay for.
What you are saying is important and shouldn’t be ignored. I follow Fine Homebuilding and Green Building Advisor where these issues are discussed a lot and solutions proposed and tested. We are about to undertake a huge home building project in Canada and support for green energy solutions and I worry about these problems. There are solutions but if they are ignored it could undermine the whole process.
I haven't followed Fine Homebuilding (the Taunton publication) for years now, but the reader letters of one of the last issues I bought contained a complaint that they should "change the name to Fine Insulation." In my opinion, if you don't insulate well, you aren't building a fine home.
Um? Solar systems can be ground mounted as long as they are not shaded by buildings and trees. All homes need maintenace over time. So I can see you are another happy homeowner. You're doing OK. You have a home.
I have seen these. They are a great idea, especially when they can be tilted to allow for seasonal adjustments. We know how to build good quality, energy efficient, comfortable houses powered by green energy ( see Pretty Good House), but it is not what the market is delivering. Instead we get oversized, sprawling designs with weird over complicated roofs that local trades people tell me won’t last more than thirty years and cost way too much money.
That's correct. Every 20 to 30 years you need to replace the panels. Roof issues are more expensive since the panels need to be removed and reinstalled. Then occasionally minor repairs might be needed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use home solar but it does mean that you have to look at full life cycle costs and that costs have cycle. Given that replacement costs are expensive so you use loans to pay for things it's really a continuous cost with hopefully a window of years with no cost until the replacement is needed.
Some energy companies used to buy back excess energy generated by homes with solar and or wind power, then they discovered that this would eventually put them out of business, so they cut the cord. Enough said.
No, sorry. It's still free energy for decades that can be stored in home battery systems now becoming integral parts of home solar power systems. Eventually, and what I want is a turn away from utility power reliance to independent home or neighborhood systems for better reliability.
One promising development is the number of homes being purpose built for power independence. This was being done as long ago as the 1970's for passive solar and geothermal, and is being done more often now as the technology has improved. Funny, but when I lived in a desert country a number of years ago I learned how, with very primitive materials, they'd harnessed the wind via wind towers about the size of chimneys. The chimneys were filled with sticks and grasses and kept damp, and the caught wind then shunted into their basements, which often had cool water conduits from underground wells. As the air passed through this system before, again passively, being shunted into the upstairs rooms, it was cooled and humidified, at zero cost, unless you count the sticks! We have so much creativity and good will among us. I hope and pray it will come together in sufficient mass to save us from those who could give a damn.
Very cool Leigh, uh? a pun. How about thick wall adobe abodes that hold temperatures steady and livable like caves. Cave men were smart. So were cave women. They liked Cave men. Thank God huh?
Your post sounds disparaging and condescending. I've lived in a thick-walled adobe home and the temperature modulation aspect was pretty effective. If I'd had a touch of solar power for some air conditioning on the hottest days and warmth for the coldest winter days it would have been excellent. Add more intelligent air circulation, as described by Leigh Horne, and it would be near ideal.
Well, there is the matter of maintenance of the adobe...
You shovel some local clayish soil into a barrow, add some water and straw and slather it on. I mean, adobe is made into bricks, which, even sun dried, are strong enough, with minimal support from primitive timber, to allow a whole family to sleep on the rooftops and watch the stars! In the Middle East, where timber is scarce, rooftops are often domed, eliminating the need for it. As in the famous Roman arches, domed structures rarely collapse, for similar reasons. What's not to like?
No Tom. Having a normal conversation with humor to bring happiness. And I do wish I had an adobe home. It's such a good idea to keep temperatures nearly steady.
Haha. The desert homes were perforce made of adobe, as are the homes in the desert southwest here. Great stuff. And as for those cavemen, god love 'em.
Energy companies in New Jersey are forced by law to buy back excess energy generated by homeowners at the same rates they pay commercial energy producers. My bill for May is $4.27.
It depends on how the price of electricity is calculated by the market. The price of electricity should be universal nomatter how it was produced and the procedure is for authorities to monitor.
So-called "renewables" are heavily dependent on fossil sunlight — from mining, refining, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, replacement, and recycling.
The time spent on your roof making "free" power for you is actually a small amount of the fossil energy invested in them.
The UK mastered coal and then the world. The US mastered oil, then Nukes and then the world.
We could have been a leader in Green Energy, despite all the ExxonMobil and Koch brothers propaganda (great Frontline story - https://youtu.be/QAAbcNl4Lb8?si=DALjSk66QwNFWtLa ), but we elected Trump. Twice.
PK writes "Why does MAGA hate renewables? They consider them woke because they help fight climate change, which they insist is a hoax."
I have grown vegetables in Houston for 40 years. The lettuce and other vegetables know/understand that climate change is real. Asparagus is a real good indicator (I enjoyed the 1st stalk on Feb 6th this year - earliest ever).
Does this mean that MAGA folks have less awareness than lettuce and asparagus ..... surely not, therefore this denial must be willful.
On a pragmatic matter - it would be real good for offices and places of work to have Level 2 chargers such that folk could park during the day and charge when solar is available. Would mitigate the cost of stand-alone battery capacity.
Some of them are starting to admit there’s warming but still deny it’s related to CO2. They have arguments about ice ages that aren’t right but it’s no longer outright denial.
My GOP Representative has a nice blurb on his web page bragging about how he helped to cancel a wind farm that was financed by "foreign investors".
I'm scratching my head as to why that's a good thing. It didn't cost the US anything, but it's certainly going to benefit the US. From creating jobs to supplying clean energy, there's so much to benefit from it. Why the heck would he want it canceled? It was also nowhere near his district.
It's another cognitive disconnect of our esteemed leadership. On the one hand, foreign ownership is a security risk and funnels good American money away to foreign owners. Must stop it at all costs. On the other hand, Trump, Musk, et all are now in the Middle East right now dealing for all they are worth to get huge investments ... despite the fact that those investments will increase the trade deficit.
I think the problem is that a lot of Americans simply can't stand to be told to do things a different way than in the past - the ways they have always done things. Add to that a dollop of propaganda courtesy of Murdoch's media. Stir it up with some additional propaganda from their church leaders and voilá. We have a group of people prepared to fight against anything which would make things better for everyone. Even if we win the next 2 election cycles, they will eventually get back in and yank everything down and away again. We have entered the age of rage-driven yo-yo politics.
To be honest, I think a lot of people have given up... it's like one part of the world is continuously trying to fight and counter what the short termist, greedy, self centred half is destroying, for their own short time gains... and it's exhausting. A few people around me, youngsters, are just at the level now where they are just hoping to live the best they can, the short livable time they still have on this planet. And it's heart breaking to see...
Cannot say it is not understandable, but cannot just do that. We need to fight tooth and nail the new Republican budget and then win the midterms and pass our own budget. If vetoed, over-ride the veto; if that does not work, then compromise and double down when Trump is ousted. Recapture all of the money given back to the rich by a one-time 25% tax hike, and taken away from worthy programs
OK. But the problem is not just Trump.... It's a whole system which is broken, which doesn't work, with too many who have so much more than they ll ever spend in a life time, while others struggle, and who will fight like mad to keep things that way..
If it means more oil, more weapons, more concrete, more pesticide, more whatever, so be it.. hey! They're making money, and Wall Street is going just fine... The whole system needs to change... and I am not sure the Democrats, Labour, SPD or whoever are enough to make those changes.... sorry, a bit pessimistic today.. 😒
Trump ousted by elections? Elections? They may well be obsolete. Trump is merely the lame figurehead of this corrupt regime. I have no doubt they'll be rid of him when the time comes. But the damage has already been done. The system is broken. Your government has been decimated, particularly in every department of oversight. And as Prof K has pointed out, this current budget may well be the nail in the coffin of civilization. The time to fight is NOW — not 2026 or 2028. ELBOWS UP!!
I’m afraid conventional ideas on how to overcome political differences is not going to work anymore. Fight the Republican budget? Midterms? This is a coup.
To everyone commenting on this stream.
It isn’t Them Over There that needs to change and it isn’t the fault of the people that believe Trump was going to bring the change. They are a symptom of us.
We Americans created the mess we’re in. All of us, ignoring so much.
And just read this morning that a new study published last week in Nature Climate Change shows that the 10% more wealthy in the world are responsible for 2/3 of total global warming since the 90s... if we had all consumed/behaved the same way, we'd would have passed the 2.9 degrees warmer already between 1990 and the 2000s... see what I mean? And that singer went for a little trip in space recently with friends, while another one jet sets throughout the world from one massive concert to another one for the sheer joy of her over the moon fans... just 2 small examples .
There's going to be a lot of MAGA diehards waiting in line outside food banks and temporary shelters during future climate-related disasters, and half of them will probably still be crowing about owning the libs.
Thanks so much, as always, for keeping us properly informed. I appreciated particularly your explanation about what made the move from the carbon tax “stick” approach to the “carrot” approaches possible. It is indeed horrifying that all this progress is now in the process of being undone.
Every country has a lot of renewable potential. It only takes a 'woke' government to make it so. (And then, a corrupt regime to destroy it all in a matter of months). The real power is in the hands of the voter; to stay informed, to come together, to fight for their rights & their country's democratic existence.
Yes, we can be fully-independent for energy resources, which is about national security and reducing emissions. We can also use renewable energy to manufacture and export many products, which will be an advantage selling into the EU and other markets.
We just have to think long-term instead of chasing five mi Ute profits.
Good to see the effort being put into saving the Whyalla steelworks, which could be converted to run on hydrogen.
Why did oil companies turn to the expensive fracking process? Because they had pumped dry all the easily accessible underground oil pools. Why is it now too expensive to drill fracking wells? Tariffs on steel have made drilling equipment too expensive relative to the world price of crude oil. What prevents the GOP from recognizing this simple arithmetic? When publication of cancer data killed cigarettes, tobacco companies diversified: foods, entertainment, travel industries. Why aren’t oils execs as smart?
The Republican Party runs on unreasoning anger and resentment. Without hate and fear, and without providing scapegoats to blame, they’d have nothing to appeal to voters. It’s a beyond cynical con game.
Kevin Drum spelled it out in 2018:
“Today, the Republican Party exists for one and only one purpose: to pass tax cuts for the rich and regulatory rollbacks for corporations. They accomplish this using one and only method: unapologetically racist and bigoted appeals to win the votes of the heartland riff-raff they otherwise treat as mere money machines for their endless mail-order cons.”
"A lot of it is about spite." Throw in greed and you have accurately and completely explained the ethos of the modern Republican Party.
Never forget about religion. Many of them believe a Supreme Being won't allow climate change. Religion is behind much of the anti-science surge.
As usual, religion is the bane of humanity.
It always will be.
Yes but. Paul’s description of what to do (basically, Biden’s IRA - which significantly was technology agnostic) still suffered from the same fatal flaw (not by the Prof but by the politicians): to tell the truth to the people. Instead of fully engaging with us - that this is long-term, that it is existential (& don’t use such esoteric words), that there will be many benefits as well as costs, that to do nothing is not an option - they wimped, and lied to us, and taxed us by stealth to subsidize renewables, which help with emissions but are only a part-solution. And we the people feel this intuitively whether we are well-informed or actively ignorant, and resent it. Result? Yet more loss of faith in government and institutions (aka the bureaucracy that enforces the politicians diktats such as imposing solar and wind farms on farmers and in beautiful countryside). It makes an easy target for the “bad actors” who want to frustrate any action - fossil fuel producers; MAGA fanatics. And all this taxation, all this subsidy, all this EFFORT is not going to get us anywhere close to their declared goals. If this is existential - and it is - it requires a whole-of-society multi-generational effort, and the first step, the essential steps, are to level with the people and to bring us with them, not lie to us.
A large part of the problem is that there is too much money in politics. Special interest groups, such as the fossil energy group, gun industry, right-wing pseudo religious, & billionaires who want tax breaks, unite to serve their special interests via election spending.
Their focus is the short term, ignoring the long-term costs of climate change.
Any true fiscal conservative would be strongly in favour of slowing or stopping climate change. But the major costs & evident results are decades away.
Agree, Andre. There are so many places to go to fix the system. One of the first is to legislate to overturn Citizens United, and severely limit the amount of money in politics. I’d also address the electoral system by making Voting Day a public holiday (or by moving it to a Saturday); putting all primaries on the same day, which would be no more than 90 days before the election; introducing ranked choice voting for all offices; and making voting compulsory (citizenship is a duty as well as a privilege). I would introduce legislation “clarifying” the Second Amendment by taking it back to its original meaning so that even Clarence Thomas couldn’t object: guns shall be what they were in 1780 - single shot (were there even revolvers then?). It might be a stretch to say the long guns have you been muzzle-loaded!
Excellent points.
I especially like "clarifying" the second amendment. That will save a lot of innocent lives.
We are the most educated Americans in history and purposefully being kept ignorant. There has always been some propaganda, but it was always to build up the country, or at least some segment of it (even at the expense of another), but this hatred of our own country is new. Not even during the Vietnam demonstrations and civil rights do I remember this kind of hate of the country itself. Maybe it’s shame instead of hate. It’s just different. I feel like we have been manipulated and still are. On purpose. Shame. Anger. Hate. I don’t think this is a good recipe for a population.
The information is easily available if one reads. Instead Americans watch screens -- television, video games, tik tok . . .
True, but do you take people where they are (like the Republicans have even if they told them lies), or refuse to roll out the truth in any form and insist people just “ find it themselves” because it’s widely available if you “care” and lose the damn election and the democracy?
That's because it distills human behavior to it's best and worst traits.
Islamophobia!!
👆👆🎯
Um, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian minister. Are you claiming MLK was the "bane of humanity"?
King was misguided when it came to religion.
And I checked my post, which said nothing about any individual, including Dr. King.
Religion. Religion is the bane of humanity. It causes nothing but divisiveness, and is a money making scheme.
Crazy to click on a link like that.
JoeZeigler.substack.com
I reported the spam bot.
Though I am an atheist I cannot agree with your statement because it generalizes. consider the official position of the Catholic Church as articulated by Pope Francis and affirmed by Popo Leo.
Were you to have referred to religious fundamentalists I'd be in complete agreement.
I said it is a vehicle for greed and spite, meaning it is used by some people for that purpose. That does not mean that is it's sole purpose, or even its primary purpose.
It wasn't claimed that "greed and spite" were it's "sole purpose" or "primary purpose."
Intent is not the equivalent of consequence, result, actions and etc., just as the 'Ends don't justify the means' nor even necessarily accord with them.
In the case of religion, the intent is and always has been: "control" and indoctrination and the results have been appalling and remain so. That does not negate that some of those conditioned or persuaded to adopt a religious belief system are not capable of positive notions and behaviour as well.
I may have been responding to a comment that was not a response to me, but to someone else in the chain. When the chain gets long enough, it can be hard to see who is responding to whom. But think you for applying such keen intellectual rigor to this entire discussion. I hope others appreciate it as much as I do. Of course, to state categorically that the intent of religion is control, full stop, is pretty silly. Whose intent are we talking about? While there have been many religious and political leaders who have used religion for precisely that purpose, there are undoubtedly many who have viewed it as a source of social good. I am not religious and am very skeptical of religion generally, but I would not paint with that broad a brush.
I certainly agree that the way that responses are shown in the chain on this platform can be unhelpful.
I thank you for what seems a somewhat back-handed compliment re "keen intellectual rigor", given that you go on to to label what I said as "pretty silly", though I suppose that it is "pretty" is some mitigation of the "silly" part.
As it is, I also agree that I was in error to make an absolute statement when I have often acknowledged or suggested to others that such generalisations are more often than not, invalid. However, again, in your response you conflate individuals with a belief system and "views" as evidence. Of course, neither represent valid evidence of other than that those who have not used religion according to its intent or viewed it in a particular way, have done just that.
As, I believe, is the case with many others, you "would not paint with religion with that broad a brush" as do I. O.k., I accept that such is your opinion but it is not mine and I suggest that the evidence of both its history and it's doctrine and tenets support my view.
However, I thank you for being willing to respond to me in a civil and open way, regardless of any intended or accidental satirical implication as to my "intellectual rigor." I know that my views are unacceptable to many and consider that I well understand why that should be so, not least because indoctrination to social norms is particularly insidious and the churches have long held extremely strong sway in most, if not all, societies in establishing and maintaining those social norms. However, in my own defence, may I point out that at least my views are the result of over 60 years of study of *religions*, religion as a concept and religious behaviours and effects on human relationships and conduct. So, though I realise that such is probably only scratching the surface of any thorough understanding, I do at least have a view based on more than simply peer acceptance of socialised 'norms' and cursory views.
The Catholic church is as complicit in perfidy as are virtually all others, in fact, it is probably worse. The Vatican is just as bad, for example towards and at the end of WWII it assisted many leading German culprits to escape.
The Popes have been no better than other religious leaders.
So, yes, Pope Francis may have been a good guy and so may be Pope Leo. There will always be individual exceptions but in many cases they prove the generalisation rather than invalidating it.
In any case, your justification conflates individuals with institutions and ideology, i.e. not like with like, therefore it is invalid.
There is a big difference between what some individuals in an institution (such as the Catholic church) have done and the institution itself. During WW2 there were individuals on both side of the spectrum. Many took risks to save jews, others helped war criminals escape.
So, you agree with me. Thank you.
Not entirely.
As an institution, I would say the the Catholic church (as well as many but not all such organizations) has on the whole been a positive influence.
But from time to time there have been many invididuals inside who have been very negative.
To put in another way, the ideals are positive, but they have not always been followed.
It makes me glad I follow a religion that embraces scientific inquiry as a path to understanding Her greatness.
Good for you!
JosephZeigler.substack.com
I think religion is vehicle for legitimizing greed and spite.
Religion’s always been a tricky subject. I’ve never believed in the guy in the sky—but what really gets me is how often organized religion shows up on the wrong side of history. Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials… now voter suppression and book bans. It's like they can't resist.
JosephZeigler.substack.com
It has often been that; it frequently devolves into that. In that regard it is like governments. But at hearth were invented, and sometimes even change, to help even the lowest among us. For this very reason they are also very appealing to scoundrels and authoritarians.
How do you come to your understanding or expression of why religions were invented? There is no evidence that such is the case and certainly their doctrines and behaviour have generally been quite the opposite and remain so.
Indeed, if one examines the 'holy' or 'central' texts of most religions they have in common, war and the favouring of one group by a deity, even with that deity's encouragement, (or command), and supposed help to defeat other groups.
It is far more likely that religions came about because early human beings were attempting to understanding natural phenomena that they couldn't explain but only experience or witness with wonder. It is not surprising that some chose to use this to control others, after all, that appears to be a common characteristic of humanity.
It could be used as such. Or for the general good.
In 1978, three years before he took office, in a speech to the Conservation Foundation in Dallas, Watt called environmentalists “the greatest threat to the ecology of the West,” and said they were unconcerned about “the quality of life for mankind.” Watt was a dispensationalist, an evangelical strain with a strong emphasis on the Second Coming of Jesus and the Rapture.
Raptured men (and women), logically, will have no need for a high quality of life, having ended theirs.
And they really want to stick the rest of us, with a toxic stew on the planet. Which is very short-sighted of them because that rapture crap is nothing but biblical fan-fiction.
Religion is organized superstition.
Pretty much, it can bring out the best in some, and the absolute worst in others.
Many religionists believe the Bible tells them that God gave Man dominion over the Earth to use as Man sees fit. They see attempts to curb consumption of resources and limit pollution as the work of the Devil, who is, as they believe, a communist. They see it as the sinning liberals trying to take power. Cray and cray.
Yes, religion has been hijacked by many bad actors and charlatans for political purposes, as well as for greed and profit. This should be obvious to anyone paying attention. And yet, our tax policy has allowed this politicization of religion to go unchecked, which should be disqualifying for tax exempt purposes, because it is a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. So, we are effectively subsidizing this deceptive and corrupt behavior. I blame both the Supreme (-ly corrupt) Court's egregious rulings for this, as well as Republicans in Congress and the Executive Branch (G. W. Bush and Reagan) who have perverted our tax policies by allowing these frauds "charitable", non-profit status. When Obama tried to investigate this and reign it in, Republicans and "conservatives" went nuts and attacked him. and then tried to flip the script. The media, of course, went along with this ruse. Consequently, it has metastasized and gotten much worse since then. And here we are, now, with the climate crisis raging and posing an existential threat to us all.
Just so...another part of the despicable "Southern Strategy." Now being furthered by school voucher initiatives.
I don't buy that. The religiosity is a cover for get-rich-quick snake oil schemes and taking illegal control over schools, etc.
The current evidence certainly agrees with you.
Aside from pros like Trump, most conservatives are hanging out near the bottom of the income ladder. They’re not voting for money—they’re voting for pride, spite, and the God-given right to lose health insurance with their heads held high.
JosephZeigler.substack.com
There are three kinds of "conservatives".
1. The rich ones only interested in shirking their responsibility to pay their fair share in taxes.
2. The religious fanatics who want to establish "Christian" sharia law.
3. The gun nuts and militia types who want "freedom" in totality.
There is of course some crossover between these three segments.
I would add a fourth category: Star-struck rubes who watched The Apprentice for a dozen years and really believe Trump is a business genius.
Those aren't really "conservatives", those are just MAGAnuts.
Yes, and they are the buyers (aka suckers) who bought the $Trump bitcoins, and got what they deserved.
Yes, I agree, suckers, and I wonder why. My republican friends write and confuse me. I write about it to releve my frustration: JosephZeigler.substack.com
You’re mistaken. There are no more conservatives unless you count Fascism as being Conservative. Trump is a Putin Fascist
Ok, fair enough. But my descriptions still stand accurate.
I would add a 4th kind, the tech bros and "libertarians" (LINOs) who want total freedom (not liberty, which is different) to do whatever they want to whomever they want, whenever then want...and to get government subsidies in the process. Some of these also fall into your first category, i.e., the billionaire Silicon Valley 'broligarchs'.
Yeah, they're sort of a subcategory of the first category. The Yarvinites.
Lemmings dragging us all over the cliff
Yes—heads held high is an important if not key factor among lie information voters. A sense of independence and pride that we have disdained now to our regret. Guys who worked two minimum wage jobs to provide for their families rather than lose their self esteem by taking welfare. And failing that, dying deaths of despair.
"Lie information voters" gets my vote for typo of the week...
Bizarre
I agree. I wrote a post about voting pride. JosephZeigler.substack.com
Spite outdoes greed by a very very wide margin.
I'd say they're neck and neck. Trumpty Dumpty's Qatari "palace in the sky" is pure greed. His immigration policy OTOH is pure spite. All his policies have varying blends of both.
Spite gives him the power to be greedy. And he's spiteful as well.
Except he doesn't call it spite, he calls it retribution and makes no bones about seeking it. His mass firings of lawyers and FBI agents who worked on investigating Jan 6 and punishing entire law firms for have defending people he imagines have attacked. He happily calls this retribution, which is, of course, his euphemism for spit. He believes only a weak and stupid fool would not take retribution on his enemies, i.e. people who don't bow down in reverence to his every utterance, whenever he gets the chance. Not to do so would be unmanly and
True, but it will also be his undoing. He's pissing off everybody.
He can have his new toy AND pay for the gas. That should save us a few billions.
He'll have us pay for the gas, or more accurately, the kerosene.
The modern Republican party is an embarrassment. And has been for decades - Regan was my earliest nightmare.
To understand why we are doomed, whether by climate change or a host of other existential slipknots we have engineered for ourselves, is simple. Evolution works by acting upon the various traits and abilities represented within a species. We are quick to deny the worst traits that humans exhibit, preferring to believe they are aberrant behavior that can't possibly fit with the image of "what humans are". But history is demonstrating, as it always has, that these malignancies are not going away despite our best efforts. In fact, now that we have come to the threshold where evolution truly takes the wheel and drastically winnows us out, our most retrograde tendencies rush forward. What kind of human, if any, will come out the other side of a future full of cataclysmic change? Evolution is a lot more random than we would hope.
You are scaring me. Age of Aquarius, indeed.
Sorry, but I feel it's important to remind us all that denial of the basic scientific evidence is not a real option. There has long been a debate in whether such a stark approach causes people to shut down, and certainly that's a fair concern. Even many of the scientists involved with climate study (many of whom are now jobless) have a very hard time accepting the direction we are heading. I can only say for myself it's been a long effort to acknowledge that this is how the world works.
I spent the morning with my perpetually optimistic friend who is reminding me to hold the light while I’m sitting there more where you are.
Yes, corporatacracy and racism.
And those spiteful, greedy people are half of the population.
Unfortunately, the dooming of civilization may have already happened with Trump’s election itself. It’s become almost impossible for me to focus on any other worthy issue than our democracy.
The decisions we make in this decade will determine Earth's climate for the next 10,000 years. Political predictions are of little value; geophysical predictions are solid. We know for certain that if we persist with current policies, there will be unspeakable harm far into the future. So it is good that Krugman draws attention to climate change. That said, it's ALSO correct to focus now on the threat to democracy. The climate problem cannot be solved without breaking the excessive power of corporations and billionaires, who are deliberately preventing us from doing what we need to do.
The climate problem isn't a problem; it is a predicament (an unpleasant situation). James Hansen, an American climatologist, has written a paper recently that suggests +4C is locked in this century and +10C is locked in when all feedback loops are settled.
Paper: Global warming in the pipeline 2023
Hansen's paper is controversial and has not gained wide acceptance within the scientific community, so it should not be assumed correct at the moment. That said, we are currently on a path to well ovet 2C heating, and given the reversal of US policy it will be closer to 3C. That's disastrous enough.
What part of the paper did you find controversial or who is saying the paper is controversial?
Hansen claims global warming accelerated after 2010 from 0.18C to 0.27C per decade. If we are 1.5C over baseline today then in 80 years we will be 4.2C over baseline.
Are you arguing the +0.27C per decade is wrong because we can see empirically that is true for the last decade.
https://www.sciencealert.com/claim-2-degree-target-is-dead-triggers-debate-over-climate-scenarios
Also, it is dangerous to project the current rate of GHG emissions and consequent rate of heating over the next 75 years.
Hansen's latest summary of his work is here: https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/CloudFeedback.13May2025.pdf
"we conclude that climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 is 4.5°C ± 0.5°C "
Doubled C02 is based off the pre-industrial amount of 280 ppm so 560 ppm.
So Hansen is predicting 4.5C of warming when humanity reaches 560 ppm.
50 years ago humanity was at 330 ppm so we can extrapolate in another 50 years we might be at 530 ppm.
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms,..." -George Orwell
I know you believe you'll be long gone before any of this affects you, but I wouldn't make too many assumptions.
1500 Scientists Say "Climate Change Not Due to CO2"
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked
How many of said scientists are climatologists? Should one accept the criticism of germ theory leveled by an astrophysicist? Further, there are cranks and fools in every field including every field of science. If you search hard enough you can find biologists who subscribe to young earth creationism.
Thank you! Some may lab workers, who are MAGAS.
I don't know, but this one is completely climate scientists:
CLIMATE FORCING | Our Future is Cold
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA
Both of them? Seriously?
That site is run by a crackpot.
Oh puh-leeze
Not a reliable site.
Link is broken .
Regrettably krugman doesn’t mention hydro as a renewable. Run of the river hydro is environmentally friendly as there is no dam and therefore no reservoir.
Bingo. All the things we should be working on: climate change, universal healthcare, bloated military expenditures, returning the tax system to something at least resembling the 70s tax tables, and on and on, have taken a back seat to the current emergency.
We can't even argue about the specifics of any of these things, because the news cycle is inundated every day with multiple inanities and cruelties of a mad king.
Correcting the core mistake of electing Trump isn't on the horizon. The same people who voted for him are mostly still shrugging their shoulders at all the mayhem.
That's why they say Trumpkopf sucks all the air out of the room.
How true! Those of us who realize that autocracies come in various flavors, as well as happening over varying time frames, recognize since the U.S. is sadly in the midst of becoming one, all other issues, no matter how critical, become subsumed into
the larger crisis of keeping the ship of democracy afloat. Even China, a recognized autocracy, has not thrown out science or is fighting climate change. Here in the U.S. our burgeoning autocracy has decided to fight both. What a combination!
It's time maybe, and maybe past time to resurrect the concept of cold-blooded evil, the root of which is cold-blooded greed and a stunning disregard for life itself. That many uber wealthy technocrats and their cohort have already abandoned not only the general population of this country but the future of earth itself is indicated by their fantasies of abandoning it in favor of mars, over the long term. They are already siloing themselves in the expectation of catastrophe, which they somehow think they are gifted and rich enough to thereby avoid. And they appear to 'own' not the libs, but the entire GOP and elements of the Democratic power structure as well. Only if we start to pull our heads out of our a**es and organize to push back will we have any chance of defeating them and saving ourselves. Not hyperbole.
We are living with a government that has already put in place policies that will kill 25 million people in the near future and incalculable more beyond. Yet some scream at the impropriety of Hiter comparisons. True, Hitler murdered fewer people in camps (and battlefields) not in Africa (but later around the globe as climate catastrophe advances), so observation and counting is not so apparent to our media
Yep. This stuff is not theoretical. You can go back a couple of decades and look at certain regions of Louisiana where petrochemical companies have totally destroyed the ecosystems and the health of the workers at their factories, who die of cancer at astonishing rates, yet continued to work and live in close proximity to the plants. There was a best seller published about this two or three years ago. All this is well documented. Wish I could remember the title. Maybe you could look it up. Many communities in West Virginia have been decimated by petrochemical companies. I have seen them with my own eyes. Ditto here in PA, where around 15 miles from me an entire formerly prosperous town is being destroyed by frackers. And all this is to overlook the death of nonhuman species by the thousands. Whole species, plant and animal. These polluters have NO conscience, none.
Is it “Petrochemical America” or maybe “Strangers in their own land”?
Their reality and ours clearly differs. Unless some method can be developed to adjust everyone’s lenses to see the same world, the parable of Babel still pertains. But who will be doing the adjustment?
Adjustment can be accomplished, sometimes, with enough time. But, as a former therapist I can tell you that most of the public communications of 'these guys' sounds as narcissistic and arrogant as Trump's, if not as sloppy. People with character disorders are notoriously hard if not impossible to treat clinically, as they think they're smarter than anyone, especially the therapist, and have no motivation for change. Add to that the fact of their wealth and the influence it buys, and you can fuggidaboudit. Better we somehow manage to corral and stop them from enacting their worst fantasies. How? Unfortunately we will need to start electing better, braver, independent representatives who will work hard to do this via the laws and federal + state law enforcement. A tall order, I know. But maybe our only hope.
I found myself looking at this post again, stuart, and I wept.
Accepting the idea of evil requires the idea of good. There are a lot of good ideas posted here. The professor has exhibited the progress made since the first earth day and publication of the "Whole Earth Catalogue". The defenders of incandescent light bulbs will succumb to the second law of thermodynamics on that you can rely. Put on a happy face. The world will always welcome a better idea if they don't steal it first.
Maybe in the long run, Al. And I hope you're right. But at present our state of disorganization mitigates against the effectiveness of our many (and there are many) good ideas. I hope that, after an I think now inevitable period of chaos, those good ideas will prevail. And I'll give it my all, whatever comes.
You left out the force of anti-intellectualism which would drag us backwards despite any amount of logic.
I don't believe that anti-intellectualism will win the day, as the force of persuasion and logic, especially when accompanied by demonstrable advantages in the near term will win out every time. Unless, by intellectualism you mean the stereotype academic liberal too fond of their own opinions to be bothered translating them into something of pragmatic benefit. Until Trump, and outside of maybe states like Alabama, which after all elected Tommy Tuberville to the senate, anti-intellectuals were not a force to be reckoned with, as they are largely low-propensity voters. And as for intellectuals, in case you think I'm one, this ol' gal came up the hard way, put herself through college and grad school, worked as a waitress like AOC and was a teen mother to boot. But reading is good, thinking is better, and caring is best of all.
Yes in the long run we'll all be dead but in the mean time in between time we can recognize change is afoot. Newton's equal and opposite reaction has found ways to express itself. The free fusion furnace that also powers the wind has caught our fleeting attention. The advantages are too great to ignore.
I am probably closer to dying than you or many of the commentators here are, but I am with Omar Khyam, the poet and mathematician who stated he wished to be like a rose, with each and every seed in his being scattered to the wind with his very last breath. And yes, the world has always been composed of opposing forces, which might be viewed at a necessary element in the evolutionary process. I wish the advantages really were too great to ignore, but unfortunately if they can't be readily turned into profit, there are those forces out there that will try to cover them over lest they lose their current advantages.
Agreed, or is it a greed? If indeed the sun needs a sales rep there is probably a way to monetize that. I wonder what it could be...
From engineering, manufacturing and economic knowledge, you will realize all prices for everything, even service economy disciplines, are controlled by fossil fuels prices. Every price is determined by oil, gas and coal prices. The switch from costly continuing use of fossil fuels to capturing free solar, wind and water energy would make Wall Street collapse. That's why Trump was appointed and continues to fight free energy. Ironically, the famous father of AC electricity, Nikolai Tesla promised free energy over a hundred years ago. He lit a bank of light bulbs in Colorado with a wireless generator twenty miles away. He invented AC electric transmission and motors. America ruined him. He died penniless in a Manhattan hotel.
Exactly.
And more: once people are free from paying energy (because either they can produce it by themselves or buy it at very low price) they are basically free from the "top".
So, what is the answer from the elite? Just add a layer of mass control with AI!
We really have to fight this (peaceful) war for our freedom, until the end.
However, energy companies were positioning themselves to profit from other forms of energy. Their position was it's going to happen but we need to transition and oil will have a place for a long time. I think a lot of the problem lies with Trump himself. He's the messiah and he's stuck in the 1960s like so many old boomers.
I think there will be progress in climate change (a Trump induced recession should slow things down) but it will be slower and less effective. Some improvements are hard to stop. Mini-split heat pumps are reasonable in price and very efficient. Word gets around.
I'm assuming you're being cynical calling Trump a Messiah.
Please tell me you're OK.
GOP doesn't care about jobs at all. Kristi Noem ended the FEMA grants to her home state of South Dakota, where she served as governor. She also refused Medicaid expansion, instead sent the money back to DC. When they want to build a pipeline, all the tv talk is jobs jobs jobs, want to build a wind farm, all tv talk is cost cost cost.
I don't know about TV, since I haven't watched it in about 45 years, but here in New Jersey, all the talk is "Save our Coasts!" The opponents feel that the turbines are ugly. New York is planning an offshore farm that will be over the horizon. They're ok with that one; they won't be able to see it.
Fossil Fuels cost a lot of money for many years. Wind, Solar, and water power are free once you bought the equipment. Solar panels last decades. That's free energy for decades.
Except that you pay the acquisition loan off for 10-20 years. So in concept, yes, pay “once” and it’s free. In practice, it’s doesn’t feel free to the homeowner, or the ratepayers who are paying for the capital to build the solar farm. It’s not free when the roof leaks under a faulty installation, or wires corrode (I say this from experience). I say all of this as a Solar owner, and one who has had it for a decade, where it covers 90+% of my household needs.
I've had rooftop solar for over a decade, on two houses in two different states. I've never had to call for service. The solar system just works; at least as well or better than any other major household appliance.
In both cases the only costs to my local utilities for me to have solar wer a new net-metering meters and signing off on some minor paperwork. That's it. Solar generating systems provide avoided costs to utilities in that they aren't pushed by demand to build new generating plants. Every home with solar power accounts for some tiny fraction of that demand reduction, even more so with newer systems incorporating storage batteries.
The costs of fueling solar and wind are zero and will always be zero and always available. Those are big items when looking at cradle-to-grave cost comparisons of energy generating systems.
that's good to hear. sincerely glad it's the case. In our case, the contract had remove and replace the solar panels cost of $500 (really old contract before the companies woke up to the actual costs); the new ones are more like $250+ per panel. It would have been close to $10K in costs on a modern contract. I believe the answer lies in ground mounted community solar or ground mounted commercial/utility based, where the LCOE is a lot cheaper and one can avoid these issues. Our issue's root cause was a bad "puck" design to mount the rails to the asphalt roof. My guess (confirmed by the working crews) is that the company was going to replace a lot of these as it was more of a consistent issue 10 years in, vs. a one-off type thing. I agree on the "Fueling is free" point, but the concept of pay once and they are "free" does not reflect perceived reality; loans, interest, and potential maintenance, although minimal, make it a risky proposition. In addition the solar sales industry already has a shady reputation; it’s not going to get better as incentives dry up and sales has to push harder. Again, eliminating those risks via shared solar is the solution I would recommend. It may not sound it, but I am a big renewable advocate. I am just trying to counter the free and easy perception of rooftop solar being a universally cheap, and simple solution. I just happen to back ground mounted commercial sized solutions that strip off supply contracts from fossil fuel based electricity.
All good points, Scott.
My first system's panels were mounted on a standing seam metal roof wherein the mounts were clamped to the standing seam, no roof penetration. My current home installation was already on the asphalt shingle roof when we purchased this home. It was installed in 2017 and so far, knock on silicon, it has been free of issues.
There is no doubt that home solar has high upfront costs. Choose a reputable installer and try to synchronize your roofing lifetime with the solar panel lifetime expectations. Not many commonly used roofing materials will last as long as the useful lifetime of solar panels unfortunately, and both exceed the average number of years owners will reside in the same home.
Correct. Ideally large scale solar arrays or shared smaller arrays mounted on the ground are probably easier to maintain in the long term. Still everything has a life cycle cost and will need to be repladed.
Finding a reputable solar dealer or one that is even likely to remain in business for a while is going to be challenging. When I got quotes for solar 10 years ago the sales people pulled out all sorts of sales tricks such as presenting the proposal in person and then saying if I decide TODAY they would give me a much bigger discount. I kicked the salesperson out for pulling those high pressure sales tricks.
From a cost of installation and efficiency perspective larger installations will win over rooftops. The problem in my area (very Red) is finding sites to build things like community solar or larger. People complain about their views changing from field and forest to shiny panels. Or, shifting shrinking productive agricultural lands to an industrial use.
Good that you gave them the boot. As a former customer (we moved to VA) I still think very highly of Revision Energy. They are based in Maine but have expanded into MA and NH, and perhaps beyond. Employee owned, in business since at least 2005, they grow their inhouse workforce by hosting an electrician's apprenticeship program. I know it sounds like advertising but I have no relationship with them and no longer live in the area they service.
Standing seam metal with no penetrations sounds great! These are big decisions, with complex choices to make. Glad it’s working out.
Very good David. Thank you.
You can buy a big rooftop solar system for about the cost of a cheap used car or a third the cost of a new car. Nearly every homeowner can afford solar.
My ten year old solar panels haven't needed any repairs or maintenance yet. And every time electric rates go up, my investment return gets better.
Agree on the price. It’s a tough sell when nearly over a third of the US households claim that they can’t afford an unexpected $400 expense. That’s why I’d advocate just pushing commercial sized solar/wind, and push from that end. That way, you also pick up non-owners too.
A lot of those people around me are driving $75k pickups. And have thousand dollar cell phones. Commercial solar is great.
So true! I see this all the time in PA. The hypocrisy is staggering! Pennsylvania, long known as the 'Texas of the East' is largely controlled by the fossil fuel, especially fracking, industry. Republicans, who control the state Senate (and until a few years ago, the state House, also) get massive and unlimited campaign "donations" from and lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, particularly from the Marcellus Shale Coalition. Also, partisan GOP gerrymandering is still a big problem here in "Pennsyltucky", even though we have made some halting progress in recent years, but still not enough.
So I took my 2-door Jeep Wrangler to the dealer for annual service this month. They had an $84K Wagoneer and a $75K RAM pickup in the showroom. Sure, both were loaded with options. There wasn't a new 2-door Wrangler on the lot.
When I last looked into solar I was surprised at how expensive it was. Supposedly the cost had dropped dramatically. When I looked into it 20 years ago it was about 30K and it was 30-40K now. It would have taken 16 years to pay off. We'll be dead by then.
I am going to see what I can get at a fixed amount.
It's about $3 per watt, or a bit less, depending on your location in the US. In Australia, it's about $1 per watt.
If you know how many kilowatt hours you use in a year, you can use that information to figure out how large a system you need to cover your need. In Maine, with a south exposure, I get about 7000-7500 kwh per year with a 6.6 kW system.
Oil, coal, and gas users pay for those things as well, the costs are just blended in with your bill, along with hefty state guaranteed profits. With renewables, you keep what you pay for.
What you are saying is important and shouldn’t be ignored. I follow Fine Homebuilding and Green Building Advisor where these issues are discussed a lot and solutions proposed and tested. We are about to undertake a huge home building project in Canada and support for green energy solutions and I worry about these problems. There are solutions but if they are ignored it could undermine the whole process.
I haven't followed Fine Homebuilding (the Taunton publication) for years now, but the reader letters of one of the last issues I bought contained a complaint that they should "change the name to Fine Insulation." In my opinion, if you don't insulate well, you aren't building a fine home.
Um? Solar systems can be ground mounted as long as they are not shaded by buildings and trees. All homes need maintenace over time. So I can see you are another happy homeowner. You're doing OK. You have a home.
I have seen these. They are a great idea, especially when they can be tilted to allow for seasonal adjustments. We know how to build good quality, energy efficient, comfortable houses powered by green energy ( see Pretty Good House), but it is not what the market is delivering. Instead we get oversized, sprawling designs with weird over complicated roofs that local trades people tell me won’t last more than thirty years and cost way too much money.
In Europe domestic solar panel installations with reasonable access (that would cover about 50% of all houses) pay for the.selves in 8-9 years.
That's correct. Every 20 to 30 years you need to replace the panels. Roof issues are more expensive since the panels need to be removed and reinstalled. Then occasionally minor repairs might be needed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use home solar but it does mean that you have to look at full life cycle costs and that costs have cycle. Given that replacement costs are expensive so you use loans to pay for things it's really a continuous cost with hopefully a window of years with no cost until the replacement is needed.
Some energy companies used to buy back excess energy generated by homes with solar and or wind power, then they discovered that this would eventually put them out of business, so they cut the cord. Enough said.
No, sorry. It's still free energy for decades that can be stored in home battery systems now becoming integral parts of home solar power systems. Eventually, and what I want is a turn away from utility power reliance to independent home or neighborhood systems for better reliability.
One promising development is the number of homes being purpose built for power independence. This was being done as long ago as the 1970's for passive solar and geothermal, and is being done more often now as the technology has improved. Funny, but when I lived in a desert country a number of years ago I learned how, with very primitive materials, they'd harnessed the wind via wind towers about the size of chimneys. The chimneys were filled with sticks and grasses and kept damp, and the caught wind then shunted into their basements, which often had cool water conduits from underground wells. As the air passed through this system before, again passively, being shunted into the upstairs rooms, it was cooled and humidified, at zero cost, unless you count the sticks! We have so much creativity and good will among us. I hope and pray it will come together in sufficient mass to save us from those who could give a damn.
Very cool Leigh, uh? a pun. How about thick wall adobe abodes that hold temperatures steady and livable like caves. Cave men were smart. So were cave women. They liked Cave men. Thank God huh?
Your post sounds disparaging and condescending. I've lived in a thick-walled adobe home and the temperature modulation aspect was pretty effective. If I'd had a touch of solar power for some air conditioning on the hottest days and warmth for the coldest winter days it would have been excellent. Add more intelligent air circulation, as described by Leigh Horne, and it would be near ideal.
Well, there is the matter of maintenance of the adobe...
You shovel some local clayish soil into a barrow, add some water and straw and slather it on. I mean, adobe is made into bricks, which, even sun dried, are strong enough, with minimal support from primitive timber, to allow a whole family to sleep on the rooftops and watch the stars! In the Middle East, where timber is scarce, rooftops are often domed, eliminating the need for it. As in the famous Roman arches, domed structures rarely collapse, for similar reasons. What's not to like?
No Tom. Having a normal conversation with humor to bring happiness. And I do wish I had an adobe home. It's such a good idea to keep temperatures nearly steady.
Haha. The desert homes were perforce made of adobe, as are the homes in the desert southwest here. Great stuff. And as for those cavemen, god love 'em.
Energy companies in New Jersey are forced by law to buy back excess energy generated by homeowners at the same rates they pay commercial energy producers. My bill for May is $4.27.
Hat's off to democratic legislators everywhere! And a toast to the power and the glory of just laws.
That is what happened in Indiana. Only those grandfathered in get the buy back.
It depends on how the price of electricity is calculated by the market. The price of electricity should be universal nomatter how it was produced and the procedure is for authorities to monitor.
So-called "renewables" are heavily dependent on fossil sunlight — from mining, refining, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, replacement, and recycling.
The time spent on your roof making "free" power for you is actually a small amount of the fossil energy invested in them.
The UK mastered coal and then the world. The US mastered oil, then Nukes and then the world.
We could have been a leader in Green Energy, despite all the ExxonMobil and Koch brothers propaganda (great Frontline story - https://youtu.be/QAAbcNl4Lb8?si=DALjSk66QwNFWtLa ), but we elected Trump. Twice.
We are stuck in the rear with the gear.
You know who is at the forefront of this Tech?
China.
How Xi sparked China’s electricity revolution https://on.ft.com/43kMTPP
Very interesting article
PK writes "Why does MAGA hate renewables? They consider them woke because they help fight climate change, which they insist is a hoax."
I have grown vegetables in Houston for 40 years. The lettuce and other vegetables know/understand that climate change is real. Asparagus is a real good indicator (I enjoyed the 1st stalk on Feb 6th this year - earliest ever).
Does this mean that MAGA folks have less awareness than lettuce and asparagus ..... surely not, therefore this denial must be willful.
On a pragmatic matter - it would be real good for offices and places of work to have Level 2 chargers such that folk could park during the day and charge when solar is available. Would mitigate the cost of stand-alone battery capacity.
Some of them are starting to admit there’s warming but still deny it’s related to CO2. They have arguments about ice ages that aren’t right but it’s no longer outright denial.
My GOP Representative has a nice blurb on his web page bragging about how he helped to cancel a wind farm that was financed by "foreign investors".
I'm scratching my head as to why that's a good thing. It didn't cost the US anything, but it's certainly going to benefit the US. From creating jobs to supplying clean energy, there's so much to benefit from it. Why the heck would he want it canceled? It was also nowhere near his district.
It's all lies and disinformation from them.
It's another cognitive disconnect of our esteemed leadership. On the one hand, foreign ownership is a security risk and funnels good American money away to foreign owners. Must stop it at all costs. On the other hand, Trump, Musk, et all are now in the Middle East right now dealing for all they are worth to get huge investments ... despite the fact that those investments will increase the trade deficit.
I think the problem is that a lot of Americans simply can't stand to be told to do things a different way than in the past - the ways they have always done things. Add to that a dollop of propaganda courtesy of Murdoch's media. Stir it up with some additional propaganda from their church leaders and voilá. We have a group of people prepared to fight against anything which would make things better for everyone. Even if we win the next 2 election cycles, they will eventually get back in and yank everything down and away again. We have entered the age of rage-driven yo-yo politics.
You may think that's true, but horse and buggy use stopped rapidly when cars became affordable, especially with heavy subsidies.
To be honest, I think a lot of people have given up... it's like one part of the world is continuously trying to fight and counter what the short termist, greedy, self centred half is destroying, for their own short time gains... and it's exhausting. A few people around me, youngsters, are just at the level now where they are just hoping to live the best they can, the short livable time they still have on this planet. And it's heart breaking to see...
Cannot say it is not understandable, but cannot just do that. We need to fight tooth and nail the new Republican budget and then win the midterms and pass our own budget. If vetoed, over-ride the veto; if that does not work, then compromise and double down when Trump is ousted. Recapture all of the money given back to the rich by a one-time 25% tax hike, and taken away from worthy programs
OK. But the problem is not just Trump.... It's a whole system which is broken, which doesn't work, with too many who have so much more than they ll ever spend in a life time, while others struggle, and who will fight like mad to keep things that way..
If it means more oil, more weapons, more concrete, more pesticide, more whatever, so be it.. hey! They're making money, and Wall Street is going just fine... The whole system needs to change... and I am not sure the Democrats, Labour, SPD or whoever are enough to make those changes.... sorry, a bit pessimistic today.. 😒
Trump ousted by elections? Elections? They may well be obsolete. Trump is merely the lame figurehead of this corrupt regime. I have no doubt they'll be rid of him when the time comes. But the damage has already been done. The system is broken. Your government has been decimated, particularly in every department of oversight. And as Prof K has pointed out, this current budget may well be the nail in the coffin of civilization. The time to fight is NOW — not 2026 or 2028. ELBOWS UP!!
I’m afraid conventional ideas on how to overcome political differences is not going to work anymore. Fight the Republican budget? Midterms? This is a coup.
To everyone commenting on this stream.
It isn’t Them Over There that needs to change and it isn’t the fault of the people that believe Trump was going to bring the change. They are a symptom of us.
We Americans created the mess we’re in. All of us, ignoring so much.
We all need to change. A lot.
And just read this morning that a new study published last week in Nature Climate Change shows that the 10% more wealthy in the world are responsible for 2/3 of total global warming since the 90s... if we had all consumed/behaved the same way, we'd would have passed the 2.9 degrees warmer already between 1990 and the 2000s... see what I mean? And that singer went for a little trip in space recently with friends, while another one jet sets throughout the world from one massive concert to another one for the sheer joy of her over the moon fans... just 2 small examples .
That's me basically
There's going to be a lot of MAGA diehards waiting in line outside food banks and temporary shelters during future climate-related disasters, and half of them will probably still be crowing about owning the libs.
And they'll be saying everything is Biden's and/or Obama's fault.
Thanks so much, as always, for keeping us properly informed. I appreciated particularly your explanation about what made the move from the carbon tax “stick” approach to the “carrot” approaches possible. It is indeed horrifying that all this progress is now in the process of being undone.
Meanwhile, Australia is going solar under the re-elected Albanese Labor Government.
Australia has a lot of renewable energy potential, if it can stand up to the coal barons.
Every country has a lot of renewable potential. It only takes a 'woke' government to make it so. (And then, a corrupt regime to destroy it all in a matter of months). The real power is in the hands of the voter; to stay informed, to come together, to fight for their rights & their country's democratic existence.
Yes, we can be fully-independent for energy resources, which is about national security and reducing emissions. We can also use renewable energy to manufacture and export many products, which will be an advantage selling into the EU and other markets.
We just have to think long-term instead of chasing five mi Ute profits.
Good to see the effort being put into saving the Whyalla steelworks, which could be converted to run on hydrogen.
Excellent. It will provide a nice comparison. Eventually the nasty spiteful ones will see the light.
A lot of sunshine in Australia.
Why did oil companies turn to the expensive fracking process? Because they had pumped dry all the easily accessible underground oil pools. Why is it now too expensive to drill fracking wells? Tariffs on steel have made drilling equipment too expensive relative to the world price of crude oil. What prevents the GOP from recognizing this simple arithmetic? When publication of cancer data killed cigarettes, tobacco companies diversified: foods, entertainment, travel industries. Why aren’t oils execs as smart?
The Republican Party runs on unreasoning anger and resentment. Without hate and fear, and without providing scapegoats to blame, they’d have nothing to appeal to voters. It’s a beyond cynical con game.
Kevin Drum spelled it out in 2018:
“Today, the Republican Party exists for one and only one purpose: to pass tax cuts for the rich and regulatory rollbacks for corporations. They accomplish this using one and only method: unapologetically racist and bigoted appeals to win the votes of the heartland riff-raff they otherwise treat as mere money machines for their endless mail-order cons.”