Green New Deal

[mspohr]

Messaging guru offers list of words to use and avoid to build support for climate solutions - Resilience

Luntz seems to have really gotten religion on climate after he nearly lost his Los Angeles home in the Skirball fire in December 2017. Since then, the GOP messaging master has stopped minimizing the problem of global heating and has instead decided to do the opposite — to try to help activists raise the alarm.

In a Senate hearing this year featuring conservatives who support climate action, Luntz promised to help the Democrats on the climate committee, provided that they put “policies ahead of politics” and commit to nonpartisan solutions, according to Grist.

As a messaging expert, Luntz is now offering his advice on how activists should talk about the problem of climate change and solutions including clean energy, featuring his version of the ever-popular list of “words to use and lose”:

• USE: Cleaner, safer, healthier. LOSE: Sustainable/sustainability.
• USE: Solving climate change. LOSE: Ending global warming.
• USE: Principles and priorities. LOSE: Values.
• USE: Reliable technology/energy. LOSE: Ground-breaking/State of the art.
• USE: New careers. LOSE: New jobs.
• USE: Peace of mind. LOSE: Security.
• USE: Consequences. LOSE: Threats/Problems.
• USE: Working together. LOSE: One world.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

How can you post on this board since 2013 and not understand that zero margin cost electricity is far cheaper? How can you miss this fact while living in a world where nearly all capacity additions are wind or solar? Latin America, Europe and Asia aren't making these transitions for humanitarian reasons, they're doing it because it's economically advantageous.

The biggest lie is that this transition needs to be "paid for". We pay for it by eliminating systemic waste, like digging and burning expensive fossil fuels to turn expensive turbines. Intermittent solar and wind are so cheap as to be considered essentially free, today. Battery storage is maybe 2-4 years from being super cheap as well. That final puzzle piece should be so hard to imagine.

Show me where the incremental costs lie, because all I see around the world right now is cost shaving with renewables. Storage will be an expensive build out for sure, but we'll easily make that back in zero marginal cost production.

From a fossil fuels subsidy perspective, I live in Pennsylvania.....a fracking state with zero extraction tax even on state lands. The state, US and local gov'ts are massively subsidizing a new LNG plant for South Philadelphia. Or at least they were until our largest refinery exploded and nearly killed everyone. I wonder if the hedge fund/private equity folks at Philadelphia Energy Solutions will be paying for all the EPA, CDC, police, fire and expensive regulatory oversight from that event?

How are we possibly having this discussion in 2019? Oil and gas companies are handed $2.5B each year just in exploration subsidies, just in the US. There are a million others that folks like @neroden could point out if they were still active here.

Speaking of.....why is this guy allowed to troll with impunity?

 

[jerry33]

How can you post on this board since 2013 and not understand that zero margin cost electricity is far cheaper? How can you miss this fact while living in a world where nearly all capacity additions are wind or solar?

These are happening in the U.S. as well, even in the oil baron heavy state where I live. It's not because of subsides, it's because it's far cheaper and more efficient to have "just in time" energy expansion than it is to go through the process of getting fossil fuel capacity on board with the large investment in time and money it requires. Once we get over the "batteries are an energy source" problem, the peaker plants will go away along with the $9,999/kWh cost that happens occasionally. (Yes, peaker plants can charge that much. Consumers generally don't see it because they purchase energy plans at a fixed cost, but it certainly raises the prices those plans sell for).

 

[juliusa]

How can you post on this board since 2013 and not understand that zero margin cost electricity is far cheaper?

Can't argue with that. No need for the government to get involved and muck it up - markets will handle it. Markets like far cheaper.

Still not clear on the subsidies. Oil and gas exploration subsidies? $2.5B is not that much, but do you have more details on this subsidy?

I know I can get a 30% federal subsidy installing solar, along with state and local subsidies and sometimes power company incentives.

 

[ohmman]

No need for the government to get involved and muck it up - markets will handle it.

The markets are slow, and in many cases unresponsive. They're also incredibly unfair, so it's unfair to assume government and/or society don't already have their thumb on the scale. Even the smallest alleyway market plays favorites. The stall closest to the entrance, the stall nearest the most popular food truck, etc. Markets also exist in their current state because of government. They're symbiotic.

There was a great recent Freakonomics episode where they discussed the role of supermarkets in winning the "abundance" angle of the Cold War. I enjoyed this particular bit, because it describes most things "market":

So when the supermarket is upheld as this, effectively, missile — this concrete consumer weapon against the claims of communism, it’s built on this idea that supermarkets are producing this affordability just through the workings of supply and demand. That it’s unfettered markets that are somehow making food so affordable for American consumers. Where the reality is, for everything from milk to beef to grain to processed foods of all kinds, there’s massive government investment in the science and technology that enables the productivity of American farms — from fertilizers to frozen-food processes to distribution. And that’s all erased. The image is that it’s just the supermarket itself that is the source of abundance.

 

[juliusa]

The markets are slow, and in many cases unresponsive.

Ok, but utility companies are not dumb - they are not choosing the higher cost generation technology. Their investment cycle is many decades.

I do support the 30% subsidy for renewables because of the greater good, even though they apparently have a significant cost advantage and don't need it.

Still unclear on the government subsidies for oil. If I knew what they were, I would lobby by state and federal representatives to end them.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Can't argue with that. No need for the government to get involved and muck it up - markets will handle it. Markets like far cheaper.

No. None of this gets started without the German government(at the behest of the people) setting a subsidized price and grid priority for electricity from renewables in 2005ish. That's as manipulative to markets as you can possibly get, but they ensured it was only done transparently and at the very very top of the marketplace. The market itself could then be relied upon to do the heavy lifting generating unimaginable efficiencies and price reductions.

Still not clear on the subsidies. Oil and gas exploration subsidies? $2.5B is not that much, but do you have more details on this subsidy?

I simply googled it. You can go ahead and do the same, or read further back in threads in this forum. Fossil subsidies are well documented and we all have the internet.

I know I can get a 30% federal subsidy installing solar, along with state and local subsidies and sometimes power company incentives.

I would argue those subsidies are at least having a cost lowering impact for the entire market since solar adoption limits the need for additional(and far far more expensive) fossil capacity. Again, look at Germany. They spend tens of billions of dollars to kickstart this transition, but their wholesale electricity rates have plummeted. Once the initial pain of these 20yr renewables contracts start coming off the books retail will be half or less than when they started, even that hasn't gone up much to date. A model of transition efficiency.

End all forms of energy subsidy tomorrow and the market would snap us into a decentralized system based on wind/solar+storage in an instant. It's cheaper and far better.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Ok, but utility companies are not dumb - they are not choosing the higher cost generation technology.

Of course they are. If your investor-owned utility had a business model where it provided services and only booked profit as a set ratio on top of expense......would you behave efficiently? Certainly not!

 

[juliusa]

No. None of this gets started without the German government(at the behest of the people) setting a subsidized price and grid priority for electricity from renewables in 2005ish.

So they are far cheaper because of government subsidies?

I simply googled it.

Found it: Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies

Of course they are. If your investor-owned utility had a business model where it provided services and only booked profit as a set ratio on top of expense......would you behave efficiently? Certainly not!

So government regulation is what makes them act in dumb ways?

End all forms of energy subsidy tomorrow and the market would snap us into a decentralized system based on wind/solar+storage in an instant. It's cheaper and far better.

Amen to that. I just wish I knew what laws to tell my representatives to change.

So we don't need the government to push the GND at all - just get the government out of the way. Seems the government is the problem, not the solution.

 

[nwdiver]

So they are far cheaper because of government subsidies?

Yes; Do you understand economies of scale? For every doubling of production the cost of solar drops ~20% also known as 'Swansons Law'. If the market had its way solar would have never gone from $10/w to $0.30/w. We needed people like the Germans to accept reality and push solar from 1MW/yr to 10GW/yr by subsidizing it. Subsidies are no longer needed but they definitely were from ~1980 - 2010-ish. The subsidies worked.

Seems the government is the problem, not the solution.

Do you want to pay $10/w for solar? Because without government you'd be paying ~$10/w for solar....

 

[TheTalkingMule]

So they are far cheaper because of government subsidies?

If you don't understand any of this, then why are you arguing so strenuously? I hope you're at least getting paid for this.

German subsidies started off by paying $.63/kWh for renewable electricity pushed to the grid, a great deal for retail buyers(homeowners) paying $.26/kWh at the time or large scale operators looking to simply provide supply. The rate was then periodically lowered as solar was ramped, the market expanded and costs came down.

Today it's less than $.10/kWh, so in effect there's a reverse subsidy on solar in Germany. Homeowners pay $.30/kWh at retail, but only get compensated at 1/3 that rate for electricity they push to the grid and could be considered a subsidizing party to the much more expensive gas peakers. This has had the beneficial side-effect of stimulating battery storage. 41% of residential solar installs in Germany for 2016 were bundled with battery storage.

Found it: Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies

Great. Next you can google, "Leprechauns are real" and see what pops up.

So we don't need the government to pust the GND at all - just get the government out of the way. Seems the government is the problem, not the solution.

If you have the ability to remove government intervention in energy markets, please by all means do so. Until then, the entire system is quite obviously rigged for oil & gas profits. We'll be paying more to service debt on the Iraq War than all renewables subsides for the entire transition, let alone the $1T principle.

I didn't even realize this was in the GND thread, which I'm not a fan of. Quite clearly it's been illustrated that the market can complete this transition much faster than ubiquitous market intervention. We simply need transparent logical rules at the very top of the market. Since our gov't is completely incapable of such pro-consumer rules, perhaps a new deal is the best we can do. I still don't like it.

Welcome to my Ignore list. You add literally nothing to the conversation.

 

[Merrill]

Can we get rid of subsidies for oil and raise the price of gas to $10 per gallon.

 

[juliusa]

Subsidies are no longer needed but they definitely were from ~1980 - 2010-ish. The subsidies worked.

I'm good with the 30% tax credit for solar. And net metering.

Can we get rid of subsidies for oil

I'm with you. What are the laws I should push to change? Where are they in the federal budget? I'm glad to contact my congressional representatives.

raise the price of gas to $10 per gallon.

If we are willing to do that, why is there so much concern about the impact on the economy of some miniscule China tariffs? My suggestion would be take their guns away first before taxing their gasoline like that. Yellow vests movement - Wikipedia

Great. Next you can google, "Leprechauns are real" and see what pops up.

LMGTFY

If you have the ability to remove government intervention in energy markets, please by all means do so.

Of course we have the power to do that. I'm all for it, though I would keep the renewables subsidies including net metering. What are the fossil fuel subsidies I should ask my representatives to repeal?

 

[nwdiver]

I'm good with the 30% tax credit for solar. And net metering.

Both of which are examples of government being part of the solution....

 

[juliusa]

Both of which are examples of government being part of the solution....

I'm looking for where they are part of the problem - specifically fossil fuel subsidies - so I can lobby against them.

 

[nwdiver]

I'm looking for where they are part of the problem - specifically fossil fuel subsidies - so I can lobby against them.

.... doesn't your religion say government is always the problem never the solution?

 

[juliusa]

.... doesn't your religion say government is always the problem never the solution?

My religion says nothing of the sort. But I would like to tell them to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, if I only knew what to tell them to stop doing.

 

[nwdiver]

My religion says nothing of the sort. But I would like to tell them to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, if I only knew what to tell them to stop doing.

Start with the fact that there is a cost to rising CO2 levels which the companies responsible for that rise are not paying....

 

[juliusa]

Start with the fact that there is a cost to rising CO2 levels which the companies responsible for that rise are not paying....

I can't find that in the tax code or budget. Are you advocating for a carbon tax? And a fart tax?

I am in favor of a revenue-neutral carbon tax that equals $1000 per person coupled with a refundable tax credit of $1000 per person. A fart tax could be coupled with that - methane is a problem too.

 

[nwdiver]

I can't find that in the tax code or budget. Are you advocating for a carbon tax? And a fart tax?

If company X is doing something that is forcing a significant cost on person A without paying for it that is a subsidy. That's why we have laws requiring sewage treatment. That is why a nuclear plant can't dump spent fuel in a creek. Why should fools fuel companies be allowed to add >30B tons of CO2 into the biosphere without paying for the cost? If they want to remove a ~ton for every ~ton they add like agriculture does that's fine....