The View from Right Field

Cutting Carbon Now

New York is shutting down the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which in the past has supplied upwards of 25% of the electricity for New York City and Westchester County.  So where is the electricity going to come from, especially since New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has blocked the construction of pipelines that would bring natural gas to New York City?  Governor Cuomo has proposed building 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind power and a 250-mile transmission line from upstate New York to bring in renewable energy, but they aren’t ready yet - obviously.  Also, given the opposition there will be to such proposals, who knows when they will be built, if ever.  After all, the Biden administration has already withdrawn proposals for offshore wind power developments off certain parts of Long Island because ….  Well, there are always good reasons for not building such things in one’s own backyard.  (Here.)

But, don’t worry about power blackouts in New York because, even if there is a shortage of natural gas, gas-powered plants can switch to oil.  Huh?  We’re trying to cut carbon emissions, so the solution is to: (i) shut down an existing nuclear plant, which supplies, by definition, at least once it is built, carbon-free power; (ii) block natural gas pipelines because natural gas emits carbon and we want to be carbon-zero; and (iii) use oil, the most carbon-intensive of all three, as the back-up power source until we can get wind farms and transmission lines for renewable energy built.

Texas - and Illinois

Texas has been getting a lot of bad press lately.  I commented here last Thursday.  But Texas isn’t the only state that is messed up.  Here is a letter to the editor that was published in the Chicago Tribune yesterday:

“Comparing Texas, Illinois

The more I read of the problems in Texas, the more it sounds like Illinois.  Texas could have built a utility system that would have handled the recent cold weather.  We have windmills in Illinois that work in winter, and Manitoba in Canada has water systems that work.

Why Wasn’t Texas Ready for the Cold? Why Weren’t We Ready for Covid-19?

In talking about getting ready for the next coronavirus, etc., last April, I said this in my conclusion:

“Robustness.  Resiliency.  Nimbleness.  These are what we need if we are to be ready for the emergencies and disasters that will happen, though we don’t know which ones or when.” 

The problem is, however, as I said in December:

“Building robustness, resiliency, and nimbleness into our systems and our countries, and maintaining them over time, will cost money, a lot of it.” 

Bad Sprawl. Good Sprawl.

If we are going to cut our carbon emissions, to save the planet, we are told we need more housing density and more mass transit, and we need fewer single-family homes and fewer automobiles.  But then came Covid-19, and the requirement to socially distance.  Which is really hard in crowded cities and on jammed buses and subways.

If you are an essential worker who has to go to work, what better way to do it than in a car – by yourself.¹  Sheltering at home is easier in a single-family house than a one-bedroom, 600-square-foot apartment (with a couple of roommates).  If you want to take a walk, to get some exercise, what’s better: a neighborhood of houses built on 35- or 50-foot lots or a neighborhood of apartment buildings with 35 floors?

Solving Climate Change Needs Solutions We Haven’t Invented Yet

Earlier this month, I wrote about getting to carbon-free and suggested that natural gas from fracking and nuclear power were part of the way to get there while putting relatively less carbon into the atmosphere on the way.  Today, I am going to make another suggestion with respect to climate change.  Most of the proposals for addressing climate change and getting to carbon-free are not easy.  In fact, they are downright hard, and they will cause a lot of pain for a lot of people.  It’s not just cutting out the occasional airplane flight or getting rid of plastic straws.  We are talking real impacts on living standards – especially on people who are still hoping to increase theirs. 

If Emanuel Macron had trouble raising gasoline taxes as part of his environmental plan in France, how are people in China and India, etc., going to feel if their chance at a higher living standard is cut off by a green agenda?  I realize that climate change advocates, perhaps especially those in the West, will say that the alternative is global catastrophe, but that is easier to say when you already have a higher standard of living than when you are giving up a chance to ever get one.

Getting to Carbon-Free

Carbon-free.  That is the goal.  Companies, countries are setting a goal of becoming carbon-free.  Some are aiming at 2030.  Others 2040.  And others still 2050.  But regardless of the date, the goal is the same.  To become carbon-free.  To not only reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere each year, but to get to zero.

But how we get to carbon-free is important, too.   And that is where it gets tricky.  The point is that carbon in the atmosphere doesn’t go away (or at least not very fast).  While getting to carbon-free is important to minimize the effects of climate change, how much carbon we put into the atmosphere while we are getting to carbon-free is important, too. 

Youth Climate Activists Call for a Halt to Fossil Fuel Investment – Right Now

Greta Thunberg and twenty other youth climate activists have issued a letter in which they “demand” (their word) that, at the World Economic Forum meeting scheduled for later this month in Davos, Switzerland,

“all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.”

And they want these things done “right now” (their emphasis).¹

While they go on to say that they understand “that the world is complicated and that what [they] are asking for may not be easy”, they don’t seem to care.  The climate crisis “is an emergency”, and it seems like nothing else matters.

Climate Change: Getting It Done Versus Merely Adopting Plans

With the world meeting in Madrid for the annual U.N. Climate Change Conference, it’s time repeat something I said back in July (and alluded to in October): If we want to cut emissions, the key is not what we do in the United States.  It’s both what the United States does and what we help the rest of the world do.

The discussions in Madrid are about how everybody needs to have a plan to substantially reduce carbon emissions, or even go net carbon-free, by 2050 or sooner.  But what we need aren’t plans.  (Ask President Emanuel Macron of France how his plan to cut carbon emissions by, inter alia, raising gasoline taxes went.)  We need realistic actions, actions that will actually happen, to get emissions down.  And not just in the United States and Europe.

“There Is No Planet B”. But What If You’re Poor on Planet A?

When I was having dinner at a local seafood restaurant recently, there was a little sign on the napkin holder that said “There is no Planet B.”  I don’t know if the restaurant was just trying to get me to use fewer paper napkins or if they were making a general comment on climate change, but I assume that it was mostly the latter and that the point of “There is no Planet B” is to get us to do more, and to push our government to do more, on climate change.

Which raises one of the conundrums with climate change.  It is easy for people who can afford to eat at an upscale restaurant in suburban Chicago to say the world needs to do more, and spend more, to fight climate change.  The problem is, however, if we are really going to do enough to stop climate change, it can’t be done just by rich people in rich countries.  Middle income and poorer countries have to do their part, too.  And that’s where it gets tricky.

@BernieSanders’s “Green New Deal”. Is He Trying to Re-elect @realDonaldTrump?

Senator Bernie Sanders was an early supporter of the Green New Deal, and last week he issued his version of what that would mean.  Let’s just say his plan is big.  It would require lots of government and lots of money, though as to the latter, his plan says it’s all paid for with taxes on big energy, reduced military spending (because we can “scal[e] back military spending on maintaining global oil dependence”), taxes paid by all the people with new, good-paying jobs, and, of course, the rich “pay[ing] their fair share.”

Most of the news articles did not go into the details of Senator Sanders’ plan, though “Vox” did include some of them.  Perhaps the most comprehensive list was in The Wall Street Journal’s editorial this morning.  (Not surprisingly, the WSJ’s editorial page is not supportive.)  On the other hand, if you really want to see what’s in the plan, just go to berniesanders.com.  It’s there.