Kicking Virginians while they’re down
As Virginia climbs back out of the hole this virus has put us in, they’ll have to do it with a growing energy cost burden dragging them down which neighboring states will not have.
Northam rarely finds a problem he can’t make worse
Published
By the logic of the climate science deniers we should not have sewage plants because, gee, they cost money.
LikeLike
Did you bother to read the article? Of course not.
The cost of wind and solar electricity per ton of carbon saved is 3 times the already exaggerated EPA social cost of carbon.
Literally, the cure is worse than the disease.
LikeLike
@Tabor
You are correct. I did not read it carefully. Just enough to get the gist. Heartland is not a reliable source. And tying this critical long-term issue in with the pandemic marks it as an ideological polemic.
LikeLike
What is improper about pointing out compounding an already severe, but unavoidable economic catastrophe with a self inflicted add-on?
LikeLike
@Tabor
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. There seems to be plenty of money to protect corporations. I would maintain that the earth is at least equally important. It may not be improper – your word – but it is unwise to delay attacking climate disaster by every available means. For any reason.
“Unavoidable economic catastrophe?” That is debatable. The depths of the problem is a function of the spread of the virus. We did a poor job of containing its spread and current Republican policy of ending social distancing – according to most scientists – will end up making it even worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, we did about as good a job of containing the virus as was possible.
In spite of all the attention testing is getting, the time lag resulting from the delay in testing until people are symptomatic when transmission is possible prior to showing symptoms makes of little use in real time, though is is good for analysis after the fact.
And the push to reopen the economy is not GOP vs Dem, there is just as much pressure from Dems.
Regarding “doing something” about climate, Northam’s policies will not make a measureable difference in climate in 100 years. On the contrary, forcing utilities to throw money at windmills will delay the transition from coal to natural gas, resulting in higher net CO2 emissions for the next 30 years at least.
LikeLike
@Tabor
“Actually, we did about as good a job of containing the virus as was possible”
Actually, that is nonsensical. As other countries have demonstrated. SOME at least did far better. At least six weeks were wasted by Trump’s political concerns. When something is expanding exponentially the sooner that expansion is stopped the smaller the final peak.
As always, you do not get your own facts – no matter how helpful those “alternative facts” might be. There IS a partisan divide and this statement is NOT TRUE . . . “And the push to reopen the economy is not GOP vs Dem, there is just as much pressure from Dems.”
Nobody’s and no single state’s efforts will make a “noticeable difference.” Which is why EVERYBODY has to get started making a difference sooner rather than later.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First, non_RGGI states are reducing CO2 faster than RGGI states due to the more rapid switch to natural gas.
But even if the whole country adopted the RGGI model, it still wouldn’t have a measurable effect in 100 years. Every ton of CO2 we cut will be replaced several times over by increases in China, India, and in the coming decades, Africa. What we do here literally makes no measureable difference.
Six weeks wasted? Which 6 weeks were those?
What policy difference are you claiming would have slowed the spread 6 weeks? Or at all?
In his speeches, President Trump has often been overly optimistic but his policies have followed the advice of experts.
As to countries which did better, which ones? I can think of 3, Japan, Taiwan, and S Korea, all of which have a long tradition of people wearing masks to protect others every flu season. Those are admirable cultural differences but not a political thing.
LikeLike
@Tabor
Which six weeks? Take your pick. Say the time from when Joe Biden wrote his op ed about the danger we faced (January 27th) to when Trump finally changed his tune on that same subject (March 11th). Six weeks is giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. He had the relevant information weeks before Joe Biden did.
What policy difference? How about NOT lying and instead pushing social distancing which is STILL the only method we have to slow the spread of the virus.
The fact that others pollute worse than we do is not an acceptable reason to do nothing. We should lead by example and by investments in technology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well by all means, lead by example and install solar panels and household capacity batteries on YOUR house with YOUR capital, but for the rest of us, we can lower CO2 emissions faster and save money at the same time by using the same capital to accelerate the transition to natural gas and nuclear.
But by mandating “renewable” sources, Northam is requiring the most expensive means that produce the most expensive, and backloaded, results.
And Trump banned travel from China on January 31, and Europe on Mar 12
In hindsight, the European travel ban should have been earlier. but no one was recommending one prior to that.
Oh, and what policy did Biden recommend that might have made a difference.
LikeLike
@Tabor
What policy difference did Biden recommend?
By example . . . NOT LYING!
LikeLiked by 1 person
So nothing of practical use.
It is true that in speeches, Trump has been overly optimistic, but his POLICY has followed his expert’s advice.
As far as I have been able to determine, no Democrat leaders have advocated anything in REAL TIME of any use.
LikeLike
@Tabor
You reveal that you think NOT LYING is of no practical use. Let’s rephrase that. You reveal that you think telling the TRUTH is of no practical use. That is kind of sad, don’t you think.
The spread of the virus is a function of people’s behavior. People’s behavior is a function of what they believe. It follows, that the President LYING about the danger of the virus for weeks on end affected people’s behavior in ways that made the spread get far worse instead of better.
Those travel bans were purely symbolic and were too late to be anything else. Both were totally porous. They should have been done right or not at all.
As a Trump apologist you have to be a master of understatement as in Trump’s speeches were “overly optimistic.” You think? He projected ZERO cases very soon. We now have more than 1,000,000 and 55,000 dead and counting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We should not have sewage plants that are mandated by Northam to treat sewage in an unnecessary manner that raises the costs substantially. If you want to live like California, move there.
LikeLike
@BobR
Destroying the environment to avoid costs is the same wrong idea whether it is sewage or noxious gases that is the agent of destruction. We only have one planet which is home to both California and Virginia.
LikeLiked by 3 people
No mention of the cost of renewables coming down dramatically. I guess Heartland didn’t want to include that little tidbit as it would put a lie to what they WANT you to think.
The information provided is based on older cost data analyses that ignore the reduction in costs of developing renewable energy technology. And the long term costs of improved health outcomes because of less carbon in the atmosphere are not even thought about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What evidence do you have that lower CO2 has any bearing on health?
LikeLike
@Tabor
There is plenty of carbon in soot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Soot is not CO2. The question was about helath effects of CO2 at any level we could reach, and there are none.
Soot, and CO, are entirely different. Those are real pollution.
LikeLike
@Tabor
The point was that YOU referred to CO2. Adam referred to carbon. And, of course, you knew what he meant – there ARE health consequences of burning fossil fuels emissions. But you would rather change the subject with a nitpick rather than admit that he had a valid point that is a factor to consider.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Northam’s bills address CO2, not soot or carbon monoxide.
LikeLike
@Tabor
“Northam’s bills address CO2, not soot or carbon monoxide.”
You can spin it that way, but Northam’s bills are about “clean energy.” CO2 plays the role of a measure of “clean energy.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Governor Mayberry strikes again.
LikeLike
The increases in energy costs of Northam’s bills will more than cancel out the stimulus checks people are getting.
The plan is expensive and creates no wealth. This is the worst possible time for such foolishness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you have not seen the reporting of the costs associated with renewables coming down, then you refuse to come out of the bubble that says it is too expensive. So your ghost increases are just that. Ghosts.
But you can try Forbes on for size, if you are willing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/01/21/renewable-energy-prices-hit-record-lows-how-can-utilities-benefit-from-unstoppable-solar-and-wind/#5457dbee2c84
LikeLike
It took a while to wade through that article, written by a guy who sells renewables, but one thing left out of the cost equation is the cost of backup generating capacity for nights and when the wind doesn’t blow enough. I also saw nothing on the condemnation costs when they wear out.
If the costs are coming down to the point that they are competitive with natural gas, then the mandates and carbon pricing will not be needed.
But so long as utilities have to be forced or bribed to use them, they are overpriced.
LikeLike
I get it. Protect a dying industry by claiming that overall cost for replacement will be higher. You always talk about hidden costs, but in this instance you ignore the hidden health costs by staying with fossil fuels. Natural gas is a better alternative and can be used to address your no wind/no sun periods.
And Dominion started working on renewables before any government mandates. Did you ever wonder why? Because they know that coal burning plants are a bad investment all the way around it it is time to move forward. The market at work.
LikeLike
Here is a two year old article from Forbes, not by a guy who sells renewables.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#65e8aeb94ff2
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Tabor
Re : Response to Forbes article.
That is some fancy argument. A mix of ad hominem, begging the question and tautology.
Adam made the point that the Heartland analysis that you hung your hat on did not factor in the progress being made in the cost of renewables. Seems that was pretty valid point.
By the way, renewable energy systems are not the only ones that incur “condemnation costs.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or Business Insider.
https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5
LikeLike