3 ms·

That doesn't make sense though. If you're outside the USA, ending coal is coming. It might just take a little longer in the US and Poland. The UK has, I think,

That doesn't make sense though. If you're outside the USA, ending coal is coming. It might just take a little longer in the US and Poland. The UK has, I think, five remaining coal plants - all spending 90% of their time idling as source of last resort. They'll all be gone before 2025. Offshore wind is already competitive with gas, and the expectation is it will be cheaper than existing gas in the next round of auctions, i.e. electricity will cost less from closing and demolishing gas plants and building new offshore wind. There we do get to a slight issue - UK doesn't currently have enough pumped hydro or other storage to underpin 100% renewables, so gas will probably survive a while as the fill in source, in lieu of batteries and pumped storage. That has been done with a low carbon tax - $25 per ton[1][2]. Brought in under the Conservative coalition government - not one you'd expect to tax excessively. Democratic societies in Europe manage to tax petrol and diesel enough to bring it to double or more the US price. You're conflating far too much though. Elections come with hundreds of promises and policies - there are multiple issues, and multiple often conflicting policies that get or lose a vote. It is exceptionally rare for a single point to swing a vote one way or another. Thus despite winning politicians of every nation trying to claim 100% support of every controversial policy, nothing could be further from the truth. As far as being equitable is concerned, it's perfectly feasible to bring a carbon tax that spends the take subsidising the poorest to enable them to insulate their home, get solar panels, or replace their car with an EV. Maybe with a policy to build out or subsidise more public transport. Car taxes based on a combination of weight and emissions should help push the rest toward EVs. If voters consistently claim they want more action, and far faster, then it's reasonable to suppose that at least most realise that will come with a cost, whether in increased state borrowing or adjusted taxes. The magic money tree only gets brought out for illegal military adventures in Iraq. Without going into growth as an unwise Ponzi scheme, there's no reason to suppose huge spending on modern sustainable infrastructure would hurt economies - it would boost a new and growing sector in place of an incumbent. Growth would probably surge due to the additional government funded activity. The New Deal was an attempt to boost the economy though didn't spend enough - ultimately it was spending on WW2 rearming that brought the necessary effect. Little wonder some transition policies have been labelled Green New Deal - attempting to achieve similar during a transition to sustainability. The logic is sound, though I don't know enough detail to know if the numbers add up. Fossil simply isn't the cheapest fuel any more, far from it. Which is why the transition is happening anyway, even without policies to encourage or require it. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/uk-renewables-out-generate-fossil-fuels-for-an-entire-quarter/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/uk-renewables-out-ge... [2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-...

javagram 7y ago
The transition is happening, but we’re nowhere near on pace for negative carbon by 2050. Here in the US, most of our emissions reduction has been switching from coal to gas, while energy consumption continues to rise and politicians block offshore wind farms for aesthetic reasons (e.g. Cape wind in MA). Once the coal->gas transition completes, the easy gains on emissions reduction are gone - now it’s cheap, already built gas plants with cheap fracked gas that need to be out competed by renewables + as yet to be invented cost-effective storage technologies. GND policies don’t add up as far as I can tell, in fact they are probably counter productive since they promise voters that they can have carbon friendly policies and everything else they want too. I’d be happy to see a tax on carbon and more subsidies for green cars and so on (right now, a gas car is still a better deal despite the tax subsidy on electric, especially with our low US gas prices). But I’m skeptical that we’re anywhere near on track to convincing voters to get behind it. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/11/10/the-surprising-energy-math-behind-us-climate-policy-failure/#31af9da734b7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/11/10/the-surp...
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Now there I agree, but that appears down to the unique success anti-science lobbying is having in the US right now. The US has long had a political structure that is not amenable to regulation -- so it comes particularly slowly, and often later than elsewhere. Forbes piece is correct that much coal has been replaced by gas, but it is not (necessarily) as bad as it tries to make out. That mirrors the UK experience 10 or so years ago, when we had a dash for gas. Already those gas plants are becoming uneconomic -- so much for their expected 50+ year life. We've already had a couple of closures, and one of the gas generators are busy trying to pivot to renewables. This under a Conservative government that has outlawed cheaper onshore wind and backed fracking, two decisions even their own membership disagree with. So it may well be gas starts dropping out of US generation in a decade, not ideal, but potentially OK on course for 2050 neutrality. US gas prices and love of the car may prove more intractable, but I haven't quite lost hope yet.

javagram 7y ago

The transition is happening, but we’re nowhere near on pace for negative carbon by 2050. Here in the US, most of our emissions reduction has been switching from coal to gas, while energy consumption continues to rise and politicians block offshore wind farms for aesthetic reasons (e.g. Cape wind in MA). Once the coal->gas transition completes, the easy gains on emissions reduction are gone - now it’s cheap, already built gas plants with cheap fracked gas that need to be out competed by renewables + as yet to be invented cost-effective storage technologies. GND policies don’t add up as far as I can tell, in fact they are probably counter productive since they promise voters that they can have carbon friendly policies and everything else they want too. I’d be happy to see a tax on carbon and more subsidies for green cars and so on (right now, a gas car is still a better deal despite the tax subsidy on electric, especially with our low US gas prices). But I’m skeptical that we’re anywhere near on track to convincing voters to get behind it. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/11/10/the-surprising-energy-math-behind-us-climate-policy-failure/#31af9da734b7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/11/10/the-surp...

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Now there I agree, but that appears down to the unique success anti-science lobbying is having in the US right now. The US has long had a political structure that is not amenable to regulation -- so it comes particularly slowly, and often later than elsewhere. Forbes piece is correct that much coal has been replaced by gas, but it is not (necessarily) as bad as it tries to make out. That mirrors the UK experience 10 or so years ago, when we had a dash for gas. Already those gas plants are becoming uneconomic -- so much for their expected 50+ year life. We've already had a couple of closures, and one of the gas generators are busy trying to pivot to renewables. This under a Conservative government that has outlawed cheaper onshore wind and backed fracking, two decisions even their own membership disagree with. So it may well be gas starts dropping out of US generation in a decade, not ideal, but potentially OK on course for 2050 neutrality. US gas prices and love of the car may prove more intractable, but I haven't quite lost hope yet.