New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act

By Roger Caiazza,

All signs are that Joe Biden is going all in to “address” the climate crisis.  I don’t think that many people understand what the climate change advocates really have in mind to reach net-zero goals.  New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) has a net-zero by 2050 goal.  In the past year New York’s strategies to implement this legislation have started to take shape and offer some clues of what you can expect when these plans come your way.

New York’s CLCPA establishes targets for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing renewable electricity production, and improving energy efficiency.  It was described as the most ambitious and comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation in the country when Cuomo signed the legislation.  I have summarized the schedule, implementation components, and provide links to the legislation itself at CLCPA Summary Implementation Requirements and have addressed many other aspects of the law at my blog.

Implementation

When a climate response plan comes to your jurisdiction expect an impressive sounding implementation process. The CLCPA established the New York state Climate Action Council (CAC) which is supposed to develop a scoping plan “outlining the recommendations for attaining the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits” for the reduction of emissions beyond eighty-five percent, net zero emissions in all sectors of the economy.  In order to “provide recommendations to the council on specific topics, in its preparation of the scoping plan, and interim updates to the scoping plan, and in fulfilling the council’s ongoing duties”, the CAC (§ 75-0103, 7) “shall convene advisory panels requiring special expertise and, at a minimum, shall establish advisory panels on transportation, energy intensive and trade-exposed industries, land-use and local government, energy efficiency and housing, power generation, and agriculture and forestry”. 

What we got were appointees chosen for who they know rather than what they know.  The CAC itself consists of 22 members: twelve agency heads, two non-agency expert members appointed by the Governor, six members appointed by the majority leaders of the Senate and Assembly, and two members appointed by the minority members of the Senate and Assembly.  Because there is a majority of Governor-appointed members all the decisions will ultimately be made by the Governor’s staff which means that political expediency will guide the decisions.

New York’s advisory panel members are supposed to provide technical support to the CAC: “such membership shall at all times represent individuals with direct involvement or expertise in matters to be addressed by the advisory panels”.  However, this mandate was brushed aside.  Background experience and relevant education were not core competencies for the panel members. The social justice concerns of many, including the most vocal, on the panels are more important than affordable and reliable power.  For example the power generation advisory panel has 14 non-state agency members: three members work for generating companies, two renewable and one fossil oriented; one member is from the New York Independent System Operator, the state’s grid operating company; one member is a consultant for energy and sustainability issues; one is from a ratepayer advocacy organization and the remaining seven members are from advocacy organizations representing renewable technologies, environmental advocacy, or trade unions.  The  Risk Monger  described them best as: “millennial militants preaching purpose from the policy pulpit, listening to a closed group of activists and virtue signaling sustainability ideologues in narrowly restricted consultation channels”. 

What they say vs. what you will get

Despite the rationale that climate change is an existential threat, don’t expect that the net-zero plan will focus exclusively on addressing that issue.  New York’s climate leadership is coupled with community protection.  In this case community protection is directed at “disadvantaged communities, which bear environmental and socioeconomic burdens as well as legacies of racial and ethnic discrimination”.  The law states that “State agencies, authorities and entities, in consultation with the environmental justice working group and the climate action council, shall, to the extent practicable, invest or direct available and relevant programmatic resources in a manner designed to achieve a goal for disadvantaged communities to receive forty percent of overall benefits of spending on clean energy and energy efficiency programs, projects or investments in the areas of housing, workforce development, pollution reduction, low income energy assistance, energy, transportation and  economic development”.  To break that down: two groups of motivated advocates will stand over the shoulders of decision makers to ensure that they get their share of the pie.  I personally doubt that cost reduction efficiency will be a consideration when investments are made in any climate plan because of conditions like this.

In addition, the “climate crisis” will be used as justification for other actions.  For example, because New York’s existing permitting process was holding up wind and solar development another law was rammed through at the height of the COVID-19 uncertainty crisis last April by Governor Cuomo.  The Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act sets up a permitting process that will over-ride home rule, streamlines review giving a short-shrift to meaningful analysis of environmental impacts, and includes “benefits” that in other venues would be labeled as payola.  The ultimate problem is that New York’s headlong rush to a future powered by renewables does not consider the possibility that the consequences of the implementation plan may be greater than the purported effects of climate change.

There will be promises that the implementation plan process will be open and transparent.  The New York Climate Act web site includes links to the advisory panels, the Climate Action Council, Climate Justice Working Group, resources and events.  Among the materials included are meeting presentations and meeting notes but links for submitting comments are buried and there is no way to see public comments. Public comments are put on a share point site but not summarized for panel members so they may not be aware of the contents.  I do not consider this process open and transport.

Implementation will include workshops to educate participants like New York’s deep decarbonization workshop referenced at the Climate Act events link.  Rather than providing the Council and advisory panel members with background information that could be used to help inform the implementation process, five speakers talked about their particular interests which, while related to the task at hand, were not framed to address the New York situation.  As a result, the decarbonization workshop misled those people that there were readily available solutions to any problems.  Nothing in the workshop suggested that the technologies described may not be readily available proven technologies capable of replacing fossil fuels, much less the fact that nothing described could completely solve the multi-day winter doldrum period when renewable energy resources are essentially zero.

Those periods of very low renewable energy resources are the biggest implementation problem for any decarbonization program.  Two studies in New York have described this problem. Both have a generic energy supply category, one called firm, zero-emissions resources and the other dispatchable & zero-emissions resources, that is a marker for some unspecified but essential energy resource.  The potential resources that fit those criteria boil down to magical thinking.  Unfortunately, there is no indication that New York’s Climate Action Council or the advisory panels understand the enormity of the challenge addressing this problem much less have offered plans to address it.  Instead expect that there will be fuzzy, feel good slogans as a response.  For example, in response to questions about reliability: “we can manage reliability and retire fossil fuel generation. This should be our North Star” and “We have a lot of good technology now that just needs policies to help them scale. There is no reason to be pessimistic and we have a history to make us optimistic.”  All of these plans provide no hard evidence for their plans just slogans and promises.  Of course, if it doesn’t work out and electric supply is no longer reliable, the proponents will not be accountable for the failures.

Conclusion

Ultimately the problem is that the New York’s CLCPA and Biden’s initiatives embody the idea that political will is all that is necessary to implement policies to meet stringent greenhouse gas reduction targets.  I believe all of the people advocating these policies accept that without question.  Explaining that there is no evidence to suggest that is true, that they are not considering all the aspects of the technological challenges and that the costs will be enormous in any event all have no chance of changing the advocates minds.  However, when the affordability and reliability costs start to hit home, I will be shocked if there is not enormous pushback.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Roger has written extensively on implementation of the CLCPA and other New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  He has described the CLCPA in general, evaluated its feasibility, estimated costs, described supporting regulations, listed the scoping plan strategies, summarized some of the meetings and complained that its advocates constantly confuse weather and climate.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.

4.7 7 votes
Article Rating
68 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mumbles McGuirck
January 29, 2021 10:07 am

Rotten Big Apple. Nice graphic. 😀

And the exodus of sane people from New York is encouraged by this nonsense. Could they just move somewhere else than south Florida?
I hear North Carolina is nice.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
January 29, 2021 10:42 am

They’ll be calling for Snake Plisskin to save them in Manhattan.

2715.jpg
Richard Page
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 29, 2021 11:59 am

I thought he was dead?

PaulH
Reply to  Richard Page
January 29, 2021 12:45 pm

He gets that a lot.

ResourceGuy
January 29, 2021 10:09 am

The alt plan to vote in the mid term elections and get a moving truck to leave NY, CA, and IL.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 29, 2021 10:26 am

There was a lady from New York,in the long lines at my precinct in Oklahoma, last election.
She went on and on about how awful it had become in NY, but when she made a road trip and spent a little time in OK, she decided to move here.

She then kept jabbering about how she was a Liberal and couldn’t understand how so many of here new friends here, could be Conservatives.
She was about as clueless a person as I met all last year.

Sara
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 29, 2021 6:33 pm

Expect more of it, Alan. They are completely clueless.

I live in the upper Midwest. There is ZERO reason for a power outage in the middle of summer on a clear, bright, sunny day, but what happened in June? OOOPS! The electric power shut off! Holy cow! No storm, no wind, it just SHUT OFF!

I asked neighbors on both sides of me if their power was out. It was, so I told them to text the ComEd about it, including their street address and account number. After about a half hour, electricity was restored. It happened a second time about two hours later, so I texted the ComEd right away. Also made a note of it.

My electric bill says my household electricity comes from “renewable” sources, not from anything reliable, and because it is now winter and we’re getting lots of snow, I do expect an outage in the midst of a very cold period, and that will get another buzz from me, since it’s happened every winter for the past six. Not a happy camper about so-called renewables, not at all, especially since I have no say in the matter of the source of my electricity.

This is what we can expect when everything “goes green” – a completely unreliable source of electricity that should not be allowed to happen.

gringojay
January 29, 2021 10:10 am

Cue the unintended consequences.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  gringojay
January 29, 2021 10:38 am

They may be unintended, but in this case they are also entirely predictable. Which makes the people driving these policies criminally incompetent.

BobM
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 29, 2021 12:41 pm

Mental incompetence is actually a defense for criminals. Incompetence for politicians is a normal frame of mind.

Tom Halla
January 29, 2021 10:12 am

This looks more like a plan to spread rent seeking and payola, not actually dealing with “carbon pollution”. If NY was truly serious, nukes are the only practical technology, but that is opposed by the hard-core greens.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 29, 2021 12:02 pm

Yes, nuking NY would work…

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 29, 2021 12:04 pm

Oh steady on that’s a bit extreme – I know New York’s got it’s problems but let’s not get carried away. sarc (calling it ‘nukes’ rather than nuclear power does rather speak to the wrong impulse!)

Roger Caiazza
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 29, 2021 12:12 pm

Cuomo is retiring a nuke this year!

Ron Long
January 29, 2021 10:15 am

Let’s presume that the alliance of President Biden and Governor Cuomo manages to start implementing the CLCPA, with net carbon zero by 2050, with the (misguided) intent of reducing atmospheric CO2. How do they get China and India to reduce their growth in CO2 production to allow the CLCPA to have any effect? They can’t. They destroy their economy, maybe some even freeze in the dark, for nothing more than dysfunctional virtue-signaling. I’m starting to like the idea.

Scissor
Reply to  Ron Long
January 29, 2021 10:23 am

2050 might be a little past my life expectancy, but I’m going to do my best to see their lies fail. Of course, Joey will be long gone.

Ron Long
Reply to  Scissor
January 29, 2021 11:11 am

Hang in there, Scissor, I´ll be 104 in 2050, and I’ll send you greeting on WATTS.

ResourceGuy
January 29, 2021 10:15 am

My advice is not to wait too late to reserve the rental truck to get out of NY. The lines could be long and the prices will be jacked up when the available trucks are in short supply.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 29, 2021 10:16 am

…and remember to get the fossil fuel truck so that you can make it to your destination out of that hell hole region.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 29, 2021 10:59 am
Jim Gorman
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 29, 2021 11:45 am

Stay too long and they’ll do like Kalifornia and assess you for leaving. That is, pay New York for the privilege of leaving.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 29, 2021 12:26 pm

When did California implement that assessment?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 29, 2021 1:12 pm

I should have said “like Kalifornia is considering” although I’m sure they are dumb enough to go ahead with it.

MarkW
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 29, 2021 1:47 pm

The article that I read, said that they were considering a law that would require former CA residents to continue paying CA taxes for another 10 years.

Trying to Play Nice
January 29, 2021 10:20 am

I would love to see New York go bankrupt. Then the fools that vote for getting more from the government can see where it got them.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 29, 2021 10:32 am

They rarely catch on. They just move.
Until they decide to live by the whole truth of things, they will forever be carrying the lies within which they have encapsulated their entire system of beliefs, carrying those seeds of destruction, wherever they go.

George Daddis
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 29, 2021 12:02 pm

How can they go Bankrupt when Nancy and Joe pass “COVID Relief” bills with massive bailout funds (unrelated to COVID) for Dem cities and states?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  George Daddis
January 29, 2021 12:27 pm

The3y will still spend more than they have.

eck
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 29, 2021 5:55 pm

Not gonna happen, at least in the next 2 years. The Dems are in control and will bail out the “fiscally challenged” states with mega stimulus and return of the unlimited SALT deduction for the wealthy as COVID relief. You just sit back and watch.

MarkW
January 29, 2021 10:20 am

The Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act sets up a permitting process that will over-ride home rule

Can’t let the peons get the idea that they have a right to run their own lives.

markl
January 29, 2021 10:32 am

More of the same from the Globalist/Marxist cabal. When will the average American get fed up with this BS and do something about it? As long as their complacency isn’t interrupted by reality they continue to look the other way. “Then they came for me…”

Joel O'Bryan
January 29, 2021 10:35 am

There won’t be enormous pushback until the black-outs start happening. And then with the loss of reliable electricity generation from natural gas and the 10-year long infrastructure build-out needed to support it, it will be too late.

… and black-outs are coming to the NE US in the dead of a cold dark winter.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 29, 2021 11:33 am

By the end of this decade, or the beginning of the next, we should expect to see gas-fired emergency generation plants being installed in New York State in places where these can be easily supplied by rail-transport LNG tank cars.

Warren Buffet will be making yet another mint on rail transport of fossil fuel energy.

The same thing will be seen in California. But it won’t happen until a number of serious blackouts occur with consequences which cannot be easily dismissed by New York’s and California’s governors.

ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 30, 2021 11:02 am

But to counter that, there will be blackouts in the summer that will have people sweating and the heat will be be blamed on AGW – never been that hot in a million years. More sacrifice will be called for – and NYC will fall for it.

Caligula Jones
January 29, 2021 10:58 am

If we just give Cuomo an Oscar, do you think he’d just quietly shut up about climate like he’s had to about COVID?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Caligula Jones
January 29, 2021 11:12 am

I don’t think so. I know a LOT of Oscar-winning actors and actresses who won’t shut up about climate! I’d think it would only encourage him. 😥

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Caligula Jones
January 29, 2021 11:15 am

Remember when we were told if we didn’t isolate in our homes we’d “kill grandma”? Turns out, Cuomo wanted that job for himself.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Caligula Jones
January 29, 2021 11:28 am

An Oscar would just make him more loquacious… and thus repugnant.

EdA the New Yorker
Reply to  Caligula Jones
January 29, 2021 11:34 am

He picked up an international Emmy for “masterful” covid-19 briefings. Evidently, the smoothness by which he spews lies rivals that of ex-president Billy Blythe IV (AKA b.j. clinton). That only resulted in his seeking more tube time.

His zeal to squander taxpayer money has only been reinforced, and he is completely intoxicated with the tyrannical power granted to him by the state legislators. The hangover will be felt by those remaining in ny.

Noting that 1% of ny taxpayers foot over 50% of the bloated budget, he offered to make dinner for any of the high-income earners who return to ny.

Letitia James, the AG, appears to no longer hold a position on his Christmas list.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Caligula Jones
January 29, 2021 12:28 pm

Like former Vice President Albert Gore?

eck
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 29, 2021 5:47 pm

Who?? Oh,yeah, now I remember

Steve Richards
January 29, 2021 11:13 am

Typo, ” I do not consider this process open and transport.” –> transparent?

Richard Page
Reply to  Steve Richards
January 29, 2021 12:07 pm

Running it through a spellchecker will never replace a proofreader.

Reply to  Steve Richards
January 29, 2021 1:03 pm

Sorry – yes it was supposed to be transparent

Mr.
January 29, 2021 11:23 am

That raucous laughter you hear in the distant background has a distinct Chinese accent.

Richard Page
Reply to  Mr.
January 29, 2021 12:11 pm

It’s practically continuous now – every time they manage to get themselves sorted out and pick themselves up off the floor another one comes from out of either the white house or one of the state’s. It’s a wonder they haven’t done themselves an injury laughing so hard.

Walter Sobchak
January 29, 2021 11:35 am

New York will have zero emmissions before 2050, because they will have no economic activity other than welfare fraud and drug dealing long before that.

Don Thompson
January 29, 2021 11:40 am

The crux of the problem is that it is viewed as political will, as Mr. Caiazza states. It is incredible that world governmental leaders have not considered this as an engineering, materials and science issue. We have a lot of experience with Wind/Solar as centralized power sources in the UK / Germany / Australia to serve as guidance.

It seems likely to me that the consequences of inadequately planned conversions to wind/solar and shuttering of coal, nuclear and gas plants will begin to be clear in he next few years. Destabilized the grids in Australia, the UK, the EU (especially Germany), California and New York / New England. That may spur rethinking of the benefits of green power. Or, maybe Griff is right; and many of us are confused.

Even accepting the flawed premise of warming at 2-3 degrees per doubling, there should be a rigorous analysis before jumping into this head over heels. I know the UK published a report, but the assumptions were questionable and the financial approach was flawed by unrealistic cost assumptions. All elements should include red team assessments. Begin with a comprehensive analysis–consider costs/benefits of current options versus green solutions, and design responses that are realistic. Some elements include:

Societal Impact: Perform an objective analysis of true social costs of carbon (footprint for green alternatives, warm/cold and pollution health effects, trends in crop yields based on experience, costs of transportation, food and key services, visual pollution, and access to areas for recreation with different land/ocean use).

Power requirements: Analyze actual trends power requirements, including an all-electric transportation sector and conversion of manufacturing (feasibility and cost). Should new construction be required to incorporate passive geothermal heat exchange to reduce space heating/cooling requirements?

Current power generation options: Include comparative capital costs; reliability (including power storage requirements); required grid expansion and facility lifetimes (based on actual experience), availability of minerals for transportation, power generation and storage and our burgeoning electronics requirements. Include conventional nuclear power, natural gas, availability of hydropower, and green options. Costs of power (including taxes and subsidies to either fossil fuels or green solutions). Does coal have a transitional place in underdeveloped regions? Do these regions have supplies of oil/gas as options?

Technology assessment of emergent power technologies–feasibility, scalability and timelines: 1) mini-nuclear systems; 2) molten salt nuclear; 3) geothermal systems; 4) fusion power. Where should governments and entrepreneurs invest?

Such an effort would be large, but I don’t think government(s) have actually done a thorough analysis. Yet, the Western world proceeds at an ever-increasing rate to transform our economies and governments.

Reply to  Don Thompson
January 29, 2021 1:07 pm

I agree with your elements outline. Two things to add. They want to switch heating to electric too and the other thing that should be included is an assessment of renewable resources availability. I think there is a real issue when the wind is calm in winter and until they have looked at it it they are guessing.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Don Thompson
January 29, 2021 5:58 pm

It takes 20+ years to do the things you envision. The Liberals with their climate religion want to induce mass starvation. to make Paul Ehrlich’s predictions come true through policy.

Steve Case
January 29, 2021 11:50 am

However, when the affordability and reliability costs start to hit home, I will be shocked if there is not enormous pushback.

You mean, pushback like happened for the Covid 19 lock-down and mask requirement?

Reply to  Steve Case
January 29, 2021 1:08 pm

It may spur enough democrats to vote for a repeal knowing that doing nothing will get them voted out in the next election – at least that is my hope.

Jim Gorman
January 29, 2021 11:52 am

They are too late now to meet 2050. The planning and design work should have already been done so equipment for the grid itself could be on order. Copper, aluminum wire, insulators, towers, transformers, switches, cutouts, etc. And, most important, Right of Way purchase. So much of this will be going to court that it will take 30 years of litigation in order to even start. The only option is for New Jerk to take ownership of the land via eminent domain and even that will be litigated.

Richard Page
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 29, 2021 12:17 pm

Who cares? The politicians currying favour with alarmists now will be retired and living off a nice fat retirement fund before the consequences are due to occur. It will be Somebody Else’s Problem. SEP’s are extremely common in politics when you can guarantee you’ll be long gone before the chicken’s come home to roost.

Reply to  Richard Page
January 29, 2021 1:12 pm

+42 I agree completely that the plan is to bail before the feces become entangled in the impeller. I invoked the SEP analogy recently for this here: CLCPA Transmission Ancillary Services – Somebody Else’s Problem

ResourceGuy
January 29, 2021 12:35 pm

Resist the Biden attempt to sling money to NY bailout with mega stimulus and return of the unlimited SALT deduction for the wealthy as COVID relief. Good grief! Biden is strictly working for Schumer at this point.

Peta of Newark
January 29, 2021 12:41 pm

Nice bit of cross-threading we could do here..

We had that Awful, Clueless & Vacant Australian Woman, just very recently here, going on about ‘Mistletoe‘ and ‘Smothering

If the monstrosity being created here is not ‘smothering‘ the Big Apple, then what is it doing, good grief then (avert your gaze Shirley) you can roger me rigid with a ten foot rogering rod.

Next, should you check out where Mistletoe best grows (as in Kerry’s Best Last Chance haha), it is upon Apple Trees of all places

Then, ha ha ha ha, the fruit of the Mistletoe is sticky, hard to be rid of, obnoxious and quite, quite, toxic.
That pretty well describes Glasgow in fact, where Kerry is gonna run with his best last shot.
Kerry and Glasgow are thus, A Match Made In Heaven
or should that be made in Australia? – home of Vacant Woman

Ohhhhh dear-oh-dear

yes yes yes. result.
just dawned in time for an edit..

Send Kerry on ‘Walkabout’ unless he’s already on familiar terms with anyone name-of Matilda, then it’s a Done Deed
epic 😀
There’s how how to sort Climate Change

Last edited 4 months ago by Peta of Newark
Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 29, 2021 1:03 pm

I wasn’t being fair there was I?
Kerry is more of a slime ball in’t he

Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 29, 2021 1:13 pm

Thanks for the laugh

another ian
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 29, 2021 1:29 pm

Chiefio with what might be called “A Modest Suggestion”

“All I Ask Is That Washington D.C. Show Us The Way By Example”

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2021/01/29/all-i-ask-is-that-washington-d-c-show-us-the-way-by-example/#comments

Andy Pattullo
January 29, 2021 1:15 pm

Climate change, global warming, climate crisis etc. are essentially a ticking bomb. Not real climate change or mild, naturally occurring global warming, but rather the prevalent mythology of CAGW which exists only in crystal ball, unvalidated computer models. They have set in motion a political revolution that will destroy the energy underpinnings of society and eventually the entire economy depending on how long people tolerate the madness before the bomb explodes. The explosion will be the realization by citizens en mass that their government is dragging them into a social and economic suicide pack with no value to be derived and without consent. Imagine what happens when you can’t heat or cool your home, turn on lights, afford food, maintain employment or send your kids to school because there is no reliable energy supply and the government is near bankruptcy. Every tree and bush will become fuel, every living organism food and the environment, already devastated by solar farms and windmills will be torn up for the last available resources. Perpetual conflict over limited and dwindling resources will become the everyday normal. Politicians and advocates who put all this in motion will not be able to hide anymore than they could during the French Revolution.

RickWill
January 29, 2021 1:55 pm

Australia has an extraordinary economic advantage when it comes to weather dependent power generation. Most of the country is bathed in intense sunlight with little cloud even during the wet months in the north or cold months in the south. Most of the southern coastline experiences good wind through the cold months.

Even with these huge natural advantages; even with the ability of the woke state to leach off the bigger states, the woke state cannot make WDGs viable without subsidy – they remain uneconomic.

I expect human existence in New York will evolve to something paralleling existence of a cockroach. People locked away in crowded housing to reduce energy costs and no disposable income to get out and live life. They will exist.

It should eventually become unpalatable for those who garner their wealth by leaching off others such that they move somewhere else.

Mr.
Reply to  RickWill
January 29, 2021 3:06 pm

Yes the left envisages that everyone will be employed in a service industry capacity – nobody will be making anything anymore.

But when we’re all looking to just provide services to each others’ companies, and nobody is making anything anymore, where supports the underlying supply side of an economy?

(I know – we’ll all be employed by government agencies. Yeah that’ll work, surely)

Herbert
January 30, 2021 1:48 am

Roger,
Thanks for alerting us to the NY legislation.
The rush to net zero emissions in Australia is regrettably accelerating. Each State is committing to what is a green fantasy if NY is any example.
Your efforts in exposing the sheer insanity of Biden and Cuomo’s plan for the “existential climate crisis”is illuminating and must be widely distributed.
Your conclusion is correct.
Only when the general public understand the cost of this exercise in either blackouts or the economic cost , will the pushback occur

Reply to  Herbert
January 30, 2021 5:18 am

Thank you

Rod Evans
January 30, 2021 2:08 am

Some of us have experienced the primitive living conditions the Greens seem to think is ideal for us to aim for.
I can assure the Greens growing up in a cabin with no running water, no electricity no internal pluming of any sort, is not a Little House on the Prairie romantic experience.
We have to find a way of presenting what life will be like without cheap energy and without modern day fossil fuel derived materials.
The tree huggers and now tree burners need to be educated in reality.
Maybe, sending them on a field trip to somewhere in the Mid West to live in a traditional water from the stream, earth closet whale oil lamp holiday for three months, might educate them a little.

Reply to  Rod Evans
January 30, 2021 5:17 am

I suspect even a month working on an Amish farm would have the desired effect.

MarkW
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
January 30, 2021 8:44 am

Under the plans they have for us, even the Amish are going to take a significant lifestyle hit.

%d bloggers like this: