State governments *were* solving it better to the extent they enabled fair competition. The Trump administration has now cancelled permits for wind projects that already were approved and under construction and delayed or blocked permits for other renewable energy projects. They need to get out the markets way.
Nearly every American energy generation project benefits from tax credits or subsidies. The only question is what kind of generation we want. All options have trade-offs.
Intresting article, as another example republican led states have experienced significantly better education gains in literacy especially for African Americans. I would like to see the democrat version of this article where “republican “ ideas are practiced better by democrat administrations.
Democrats' problem, and especially progressives, is that they view climate change more as a cudgel to implement unrelated policy changes and aesthetic preferences; the Green New Deal was a standard left-wing jobs bill that was tangentially related to addressing climate change. You also see density and urbanism connected to it, which are really much more aesthetic preferences. And the attacks on meat for its contributions to climate change are going to backfire spectacularly; Republicans are already going after this because they know a political winner when they see it.
Republican voters may not care about climate change but they definitely care about their electric bill and that's been a prime motivator for building wind and solar farms in Texas.
Your first point is spot on and I wish I explicitly mentioned it in the piece--so I'm glad you did here. Whether the aesthetic preference or revolutionary, all-encompassing legislation, one thing Dems (yes, mostly progressives) have proved is their methods have failed to make substantive progress towards this climate problem. Republicans blow with the wind, even if in a reactionary sense, but it's worked! I also think you're right about their motives; climate change simply isn't important to the GOP. They nevertheless are solving problems that *also* help improve the climate situation.
It’s more that Republican states are more likely to vote for infrastructure when Republicans can claim credit for the benefits of that infrastructure.
There’s a simple binary at play here:
When Republicans control the legislature and governorship, elected Republicans and their donors support new infrastructure. More importantly, they do not organize to present obstructionist hurdles to realizing that infrastructure. Democrats also support the new infrastructure, and do not seek institutional means to block that new development. With neither party presenting roadblocks to the new infrastructure, it gets built.
The reverse is not true: when Democrats control the legislature and governorship (or there is split government at a state level), Republicans do not support new infrastructure, which they campaign against as wasteful spending. They actively organize institutional obstruction at every level of government and at every level of the judiciary to stymie infrastructure projects initiated by Democrats. As a result, new infrastructure does not get built.
This binary explains the growth of renewable energy in Republican controlled states— because they are in practice cost sensitive, and it is genuinely the case that new power production by solar and wind is now cheaper than most fossil fuel energy production. So when the local grid needs an additional 20GW of power, in a Republican controlled territory that 20GW is built as cost-efficiently as possible, meaning it comes from a renewable source.
You're mistaking Republican politicians like Mitt Romney (who instituted "Romneycare" when he was governor of Massachusetts, of which Obamacare was a clone) with Republican politicians like Roger Stone.
I think a lot of people reading your article won't realize that you're including nuclear in the "clean" category. Renewables are about 25%, and a good share of that is hydro.
Nuclear is ‘clean’. And I’m not sure what 25% is representing, but a good portion of the renewable source is hydro— not enough nor as much as it could be. Dems are doing that *more* right, at least!
Interesting. Why do you think blue states haven't cashed out those same subsidies as much or steamrolled the process like many GOP ones do, as you mention? Also what does democratize grid governance mean? That seems worth exploring on my part!
I think we could do a better job of equalizing subsidies, but subsidies are meaningless unless you can actually get things done. I understand there is a big difference, and possibly an advantage, to those living in the heartland, but again that means nothing unless things are actually being developed, invested, deployed, utilized, etc. The per capita thing I guess could be true, but I don't think it has anything to do with per capita here: we just need more clean energy period. Total, per capita, per county, average, median.... use any concept you like, the point is we need more clean energy and red states are just doing that better currently. Mostly because they're not too worried about the burden sharing and starving monopolies and having an equal unionized vote for every decision. That's like.... the whole problem with Democrats right now. Get over it and build!
State governments *were* solving it better to the extent they enabled fair competition. The Trump administration has now cancelled permits for wind projects that already were approved and under construction and delayed or blocked permits for other renewable energy projects. They need to get out the markets way.
There’s definitely some truth to that.
Many of those projects are tied to subsidies, mandates and tax credits. Very few are pure market driven.
Nearly every American energy generation project benefits from tax credits or subsidies. The only question is what kind of generation we want. All options have trade-offs.
Intresting article, as another example republican led states have experienced significantly better education gains in literacy especially for African Americans. I would like to see the democrat version of this article where “republican “ ideas are practiced better by democrat administrations.
Crime.
Excellent article, although I disagree with your sniffing about “isolationist foreign policy”.
Possibly hyperbolic but I think that's certainly the sentiment he was conveying. Thanks so much for reading!
Correct.
Democrats' problem, and especially progressives, is that they view climate change more as a cudgel to implement unrelated policy changes and aesthetic preferences; the Green New Deal was a standard left-wing jobs bill that was tangentially related to addressing climate change. You also see density and urbanism connected to it, which are really much more aesthetic preferences. And the attacks on meat for its contributions to climate change are going to backfire spectacularly; Republicans are already going after this because they know a political winner when they see it.
Republican voters may not care about climate change but they definitely care about their electric bill and that's been a prime motivator for building wind and solar farms in Texas.
100%!
Your first point is spot on and I wish I explicitly mentioned it in the piece--so I'm glad you did here. Whether the aesthetic preference or revolutionary, all-encompassing legislation, one thing Dems (yes, mostly progressives) have proved is their methods have failed to make substantive progress towards this climate problem. Republicans blow with the wind, even if in a reactionary sense, but it's worked! I also think you're right about their motives; climate change simply isn't important to the GOP. They nevertheless are solving problems that *also* help improve the climate situation.
Thanks for reading and engaging!
Democrats also too easily veer into degrowth-type stuff and like, you can't win on climate change if the solution sounds worse than the problem.
Does degrowth solve literally *any* problem? lol
Banger, super well written and I love the backlinks
It’s more that Republican states are more likely to vote for infrastructure when Republicans can claim credit for the benefits of that infrastructure.
There’s a simple binary at play here:
When Republicans control the legislature and governorship, elected Republicans and their donors support new infrastructure. More importantly, they do not organize to present obstructionist hurdles to realizing that infrastructure. Democrats also support the new infrastructure, and do not seek institutional means to block that new development. With neither party presenting roadblocks to the new infrastructure, it gets built.
The reverse is not true: when Democrats control the legislature and governorship (or there is split government at a state level), Republicans do not support new infrastructure, which they campaign against as wasteful spending. They actively organize institutional obstruction at every level of government and at every level of the judiciary to stymie infrastructure projects initiated by Democrats. As a result, new infrastructure does not get built.
This binary explains the growth of renewable energy in Republican controlled states— because they are in practice cost sensitive, and it is genuinely the case that new power production by solar and wind is now cheaper than most fossil fuel energy production. So when the local grid needs an additional 20GW of power, in a Republican controlled territory that 20GW is built as cost-efficiently as possible, meaning it comes from a renewable source.
You're mistaking Republican politicians like Mitt Romney (who instituted "Romneycare" when he was governor of Massachusetts, of which Obamacare was a clone) with Republican politicians like Roger Stone.
I think a lot of people reading your article won't realize that you're including nuclear in the "clean" category. Renewables are about 25%, and a good share of that is hydro.
Nuclear is ‘clean’. And I’m not sure what 25% is representing, but a good portion of the renewable source is hydro— not enough nor as much as it could be. Dems are doing that *more* right, at least!
Here in the northwest of the coastal left, democrat governments are either dismantling or planning to dismantle hydro.
They will be sorry.
Interesting. Why do you think blue states haven't cashed out those same subsidies as much or steamrolled the process like many GOP ones do, as you mention? Also what does democratize grid governance mean? That seems worth exploring on my part!
I think we could do a better job of equalizing subsidies, but subsidies are meaningless unless you can actually get things done. I understand there is a big difference, and possibly an advantage, to those living in the heartland, but again that means nothing unless things are actually being developed, invested, deployed, utilized, etc. The per capita thing I guess could be true, but I don't think it has anything to do with per capita here: we just need more clean energy period. Total, per capita, per county, average, median.... use any concept you like, the point is we need more clean energy and red states are just doing that better currently. Mostly because they're not too worried about the burden sharing and starving monopolies and having an equal unionized vote for every decision. That's like.... the whole problem with Democrats right now. Get over it and build!