But Republicans don't have a plan for greenhouse gases! The CEO's "optimistic" plan. Lastly, my own halfway tongue in cheek short series on why CO is so expensive.
But Republicans have no plans to tackle climate change!
I usually stay away from national issues, but I chose to talk about the bill from the article below because it provides pushback on the idea that Republicans and/or conservatives have no plan to deal with climate change.
For a long time, and likely for a variety of reasons, Republicans have been playing defense on climate change: that is, they've mostly been responding to policy presented by Democrats. There are things here and there, but not any concerted effort to deal with the issue.
I'm not much of a horse-race politics guy so I'm not going to try and say whether or not having ideas of your own or playing defense is a better political strategy, but I've often thought that conservatives and Republicans should be proposing some policy on the issue if for no other reason than that they should have something to point to when the inevitable question ("well what do you think we should be doing then?") arises from Democrats and Independents.
The bill covered in the article below is one example that can be pointed to. Federal Senators Cassidy and Graham recently debuted a bill that makes a foreign pollution fee on exports coming from countries with higher pollution and greenhouse gas emissions than the US.
I think it's a sound idea. I need to see more about the details, but the idea that we would be better off trying to convince other big nations around the world to clean up their act is a good one.
To quote the article, "The bill takes advantage of the fact that American heavy industries generally have cleaner processes than their Russian, Chinese, or Indian competition. Chinese plastic makers, for instance, emit perhaps twice as much carbon for every unit of production as American plastic makers."
Second, to counter the idea that this sort of policy is simply pointing to your neighbor and saying you won't clean up til they do, I'd offer you the graphic I made and attached as a screenshot. We should be looking at ways to get bigger emitters to cut back because it's simply more efficient.
Schematically, the US is the part of the graph in red and China would be in blue. To get the same reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would take a much bigger outlay or resources for us than to achieve the same reduction from China.
It would be nice to, as some have put it, lead by example and get China to follow, but you can wish in one hand and poop in the other and tell me which fills up first. I don't think China is going to follow us no matter how righteous our actions and example. We should therefore, and this bill seems to, encourage them to clean up using other means than bankrupting ourselves to achieve small gains.
I will be curious to see what happens with this bill. I will also be curious to note what, if any, coverage this gets. Experience has shown that the bill will stall and receive no coverage, but, hey, a guy can hope.
https://heatmap.news/politics/foreign-pollution-fee-act-of-2023-lindsey-graham-bill-cassidy
I would say that calling this report optimistic is apt.
The article below teases a report given to the Colorado Energy Office** that the Sun activist (oops, "reporter") Mr. Booth describes in the lede (quoting from the article linked below): "Colorado’s electric power sector can cut greenhouse gas emissions by 98.5% by 2040 without major policy changes or major new costs to consumers, according to an optimistic state analysis that came as a happy shock to energy officials and environmentalists."
To further set environmentalists' tails a-wagging, the article continues: "The lowest-cost option in the independent analysis also avoids relying on controversial technologies such as carbon capture and underground storage, or unproven hydrogen fuel systems, to get to the 98.5% cuts. Achieving true 100% cuts and net-zero electricity generation by 2040 would likely require more of those expensive innovations, including relying on the growing call for exploiting geothermal energy in Colorado, the analysis said."
I'm loathe to say too much either way until I get a chance to see the full report itself, but this is one of those cases (see the first post from yesterday) where "big claims need big evidence".
Transitioning this quickly, cutting greenhouse gases that much that quickly with no new costs or policy changes is a big claim indeed and I await seeing what big evidence is produced.
More to come.
Oh, and I'd like to point out that nowhere in this article is grid stability and reliability mentioned. An oversight? We'll see.
**The report is not yet released to the public. I wrote the CEO for a copy and they offered a "teaser" version that they gave to the Sun, but I declined and will wait on the full report and post on it when it's out in December. Expect a post about it then.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/11/01/colorado-greenhouse-gas-cuts-power-plants/
But on the other hand …
And while the CEO is optimistic that we can eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from our power sector, they are apparently not so optimistic about other sectors of the economy.
Let me boil this down with a quote from the article linked below:
"Environmental groups and many local lawmakers have pointed to the carbon reduction gaps as proof Colorado needs to accelerate new regulations for transportation and the oil and gas industry, two sectors of the economy that they claim continue an outsize influence on emissions."
I.e. with one hand they pat themselves on the back for things they haven't accomplished yet (according to modeling) and with the other they'll start digging further and further into the economy because (according to modeling) it's not enough.
Right.
A laundry list of regulatory proposals is in the below.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/11/08/colorado-carbon-cuts-greenhouse-gas-new-study/
My thoughts on why its so expensive here.
The Sun's started a new Series on why it's so expensive here.
I have my own, albeit shorter, series. Only halfway tongue in cheek.
Liberals move here for low prices and taxes. They move here for opportunity and jobs.
They can work on computers, smoke weed, and ski on weekends.
They help elect liberal people who make socially-conscious policy that raises taxes, increases regulations, and make life more expensive and business less attractive.
They compete with each other for finite resources and the bidding drives up prices, yet still more come.
Then the Feds start backing dumptrucks full of cash up to the state, and start emptying the beds driving inflation.
Then they complain about the cost of living.
Series complete.