Good read. Although if I had a criticism, it would be that phrases like "the campaign is mostly just a pet project by a bunch of Twitter idiots who don’t know shit about shit" make it a little hard to share it with the people I try to build a credibility with.
Well said. The thing is, the Angry Right is animated by culture wars. If it wasn't this, it'd be something equally asinine, and that's been the case for years (remember Jerry Falwell and the "gay Teletubby"?). But, the sad thing is, it works all too well. Hell, the Orange Asscactus was elected in 2016 based on a campaign of pure culture grievances, and Ron DeSantis has made culture wars the centerpiece of his (inevitable) Presidential campaign. When you have an entire network devoted to playing up this BS, why wouldn't you do it?
Calling humanity "both the cause of and the solution to all of life’s problems" overstates humanity's importance in both directions. Some problems are beyond our power, and some aren't our fault.
As for the CPSC employee, Richard Trumka Jr. - the longer Biden does go without firing him, the more it looks like a trial balloon rather than a rogue element. I'm fairly sympathetic to right-wingers who believe that because, after all, the left spent the whole Trump term saying things like "when they show you who they really are, believe them" - no-one believes in innocent mistakes anymore, and every time is interpreted as a mask-off moment.
It is, of course, also a problem if regulators are making "innocent mistakes". We don't pay these people to be fools.
You can tell how religious an environmentalist is by just asking “so what about nuclear?” The more religious the more against it they are.
Even though. Even in the worst case scenario a few meltdowns (which most likely won’t happen in modern generators) must be worth oh “the whole of the species” (according to them that’s the risk. Everyone). They will remain steadfastly against it.
In defence of Maroon 5, they have an important contribution to society.
I tell my teenage daughter "listen carefully to those lyrics... understand what is going on in that man's head... and avoid guys like that at all costs"
Sorry Jeff. If you look at my profile you'll see I support a lot of authors here on Substack.
And yes, I enjoyed this piece. But I am at my limit on how much my wife will let me spend here on Substack.
You mention "zero emissions" in this most interesting essay.
However, on a global scale, zero emissions is impossible. EC vehicles are built in factories. You cannot create steel using pixie dust as an energy source. Make ECs using fiberglass? Better have more petroleum to send to the refineries.
We in the USA are already bragging about zero emissions while describing products we import from countries that create massive amounts of carbon based emissions.
When I was a young newspaper reporter I wrote 24 articles about the dreaded energy "crisis" of the 70s. Even back then, there was a great deal of BS about the causes.
Lost in the news last week was the fact that the Chinese population declined in 2022. This will have more of an effect on climate change than anything. You have a major climate problem if global population hits 30B by 2100. You don't if it doesn't hit 10B. And yet, if you point this out to the left, they get mad. You would think they would be happy, but they aren't.
Which says it all. It isn't about climate, it is about sticking it to demographic the left loathes.
The whole part I found funny was nobody saw that you can either (a) burn natural gas directly to heat your food or (b) burn natural gas to heat up steam to turn a turbine to convert that heat to electricity and then transport it and then convert that electricity to heat your food. I am open to being convinced but I have to imagine that (a) is more efficient than (b).
At the same time, the argument reminds me of the right-wing complaint that Democrats are going to confiscate all their guns. It looks like a man, but with straw poking out of its ears and shirtcuffs.
So, there's a big difference between taking away people's gas stoves and ruling that new housing needs to be run on something other than gas. The latter is working in Berkeley (although that city is admittedly not part of the "exhausted middle.")
"Is this just “ban plastic straws” all over again?"
Well, maybe not. The environmental left wants to get rid of natural gas *as a fuel*, and that often means getting rid of the natural gas infrastructure, including the utilities that deliver it. I suspect that most people would be fine switching their source of home heating, as long as the alternative kept the house just as warm, and modern heat pumps can do this in most places pretty efficiently.
But a *lot* of people aren't going to be eager to give up their gas stove for a much crappier electric alternative, even aside from the issues described above (induction notwithstanding). Hence the focus on health issues: instead of asking people to sacrifice elements of their quality of life, we're telling them to stop poisoning themselves!
Even worse, if the activists are successful and drive a NG utility under *without* having already switched over the home infrastructure, we will have a pretty serious societal problem. Companies can go out of business in a hurry, even regulated ones like gas utilities. Conceivably, quite a few people could wake up one day and find out they have no way to heat their homes or cook food. Richer homeowners might be able to get out of it just by spending, but renters? Those without a financial cushion?
Fusion energy is discovered. In 30 years we do not burn much old animals and plants anymore. Clickbait media will continue until they find a comet on collision path. Globalism +big tech hysteria is big business. I don't care anymore. Morons
You should have said an "economic" challenge. The technology is either already there or with regulatory reform would be there if people who want to combust carbon atoms had to pay a small tax for each atom combusted whose CO2 was allowed to escape into the atmosphere.
Hey, energy guy here just clearing something up so you can electrify without fear of more coal: The last new coal plant commissioned in the US was in 2013. Coal plants are being decommissioned and ramped down all over the country, at a pace of almost 10 GW a year for a decade (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54559#).
What's replacing coal? Solar was almost half of all additions to our electric generating capacity last year; solar and wind collectively were 63% of new generation last year. 21% of that new capacity (we're up to 84% now) was natural gas. Batteries and nukes were pretty much all of the rest. No coal.
Is, I urge anyone who’s great at skewering the other ‘side’ to turn that talent towards your own and do the exact same thing..... sometimes you get close to doing this but I still see a lot of blind spots in your perspective.
Good read. Although if I had a criticism, it would be that phrases like "the campaign is mostly just a pet project by a bunch of Twitter idiots who don’t know shit about shit" make it a little hard to share it with the people I try to build a credibility with.
Well said. The thing is, the Angry Right is animated by culture wars. If it wasn't this, it'd be something equally asinine, and that's been the case for years (remember Jerry Falwell and the "gay Teletubby"?). But, the sad thing is, it works all too well. Hell, the Orange Asscactus was elected in 2016 based on a campaign of pure culture grievances, and Ron DeSantis has made culture wars the centerpiece of his (inevitable) Presidential campaign. When you have an entire network devoted to playing up this BS, why wouldn't you do it?
Calling humanity "both the cause of and the solution to all of life’s problems" overstates humanity's importance in both directions. Some problems are beyond our power, and some aren't our fault.
As for the CPSC employee, Richard Trumka Jr. - the longer Biden does go without firing him, the more it looks like a trial balloon rather than a rogue element. I'm fairly sympathetic to right-wingers who believe that because, after all, the left spent the whole Trump term saying things like "when they show you who they really are, believe them" - no-one believes in innocent mistakes anymore, and every time is interpreted as a mask-off moment.
It is, of course, also a problem if regulators are making "innocent mistakes". We don't pay these people to be fools.
You can tell how religious an environmentalist is by just asking “so what about nuclear?” The more religious the more against it they are.
Even though. Even in the worst case scenario a few meltdowns (which most likely won’t happen in modern generators) must be worth oh “the whole of the species” (according to them that’s the risk. Everyone). They will remain steadfastly against it.
In defence of Maroon 5, they have an important contribution to society.
I tell my teenage daughter "listen carefully to those lyrics... understand what is going on in that man's head... and avoid guys like that at all costs"
Sorry Jeff. If you look at my profile you'll see I support a lot of authors here on Substack.
And yes, I enjoyed this piece. But I am at my limit on how much my wife will let me spend here on Substack.
You mention "zero emissions" in this most interesting essay.
However, on a global scale, zero emissions is impossible. EC vehicles are built in factories. You cannot create steel using pixie dust as an energy source. Make ECs using fiberglass? Better have more petroleum to send to the refineries.
We in the USA are already bragging about zero emissions while describing products we import from countries that create massive amounts of carbon based emissions.
When I was a young newspaper reporter I wrote 24 articles about the dreaded energy "crisis" of the 70s. Even back then, there was a great deal of BS about the causes.
Lost in the news last week was the fact that the Chinese population declined in 2022. This will have more of an effect on climate change than anything. You have a major climate problem if global population hits 30B by 2100. You don't if it doesn't hit 10B. And yet, if you point this out to the left, they get mad. You would think they would be happy, but they aren't.
Which says it all. It isn't about climate, it is about sticking it to demographic the left loathes.
The whole part I found funny was nobody saw that you can either (a) burn natural gas directly to heat your food or (b) burn natural gas to heat up steam to turn a turbine to convert that heat to electricity and then transport it and then convert that electricity to heat your food. I am open to being convinced but I have to imagine that (a) is more efficient than (b).
Funny. Insightful. Back-of-envelope-math. Good stuff.
Great column. Drop the Mike.
Lots of good points and guffaw-inspiring lines.
At the same time, the argument reminds me of the right-wing complaint that Democrats are going to confiscate all their guns. It looks like a man, but with straw poking out of its ears and shirtcuffs.
So, there's a big difference between taking away people's gas stoves and ruling that new housing needs to be run on something other than gas. The latter is working in Berkeley (although that city is admittedly not part of the "exhausted middle.")
https://www.achrnews.com/articles/146993-gas-infrastructure-ban-takes-hold-in-berkeley
If there's one demographic Republicans love, it's the Straw-Americans. Maybe part of our walk-back is pointing that out?
I'm very grateful that you've found time to keep us educated and amused despite everything else going on in your life!
"Is this just “ban plastic straws” all over again?"
Well, maybe not. The environmental left wants to get rid of natural gas *as a fuel*, and that often means getting rid of the natural gas infrastructure, including the utilities that deliver it. I suspect that most people would be fine switching their source of home heating, as long as the alternative kept the house just as warm, and modern heat pumps can do this in most places pretty efficiently.
But a *lot* of people aren't going to be eager to give up their gas stove for a much crappier electric alternative, even aside from the issues described above (induction notwithstanding). Hence the focus on health issues: instead of asking people to sacrifice elements of their quality of life, we're telling them to stop poisoning themselves!
Even worse, if the activists are successful and drive a NG utility under *without* having already switched over the home infrastructure, we will have a pretty serious societal problem. Companies can go out of business in a hurry, even regulated ones like gas utilities. Conceivably, quite a few people could wake up one day and find out they have no way to heat their homes or cook food. Richer homeowners might be able to get out of it just by spending, but renters? Those without a financial cushion?
Fusion energy is discovered. In 30 years we do not burn much old animals and plants anymore. Clickbait media will continue until they find a comet on collision path. Globalism +big tech hysteria is big business. I don't care anymore. Morons
You should have said an "economic" challenge. The technology is either already there or with regulatory reform would be there if people who want to combust carbon atoms had to pay a small tax for each atom combusted whose CO2 was allowed to escape into the atmosphere.
Hey, energy guy here just clearing something up so you can electrify without fear of more coal: The last new coal plant commissioned in the US was in 2013. Coal plants are being decommissioned and ramped down all over the country, at a pace of almost 10 GW a year for a decade (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54559#).
What's replacing coal? Solar was almost half of all additions to our electric generating capacity last year; solar and wind collectively were 63% of new generation last year. 21% of that new capacity (we're up to 84% now) was natural gas. Batteries and nukes were pretty much all of the rest. No coal.
All I can say
Is, I urge anyone who’s great at skewering the other ‘side’ to turn that talent towards your own and do the exact same thing..... sometimes you get close to doing this but I still see a lot of blind spots in your perspective.