California May Be Crazy In Its “Climate” Initiatives, But New York Wants To Be Even Crazier

From The MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

In the competition among the states to establish progressive and “woke” bona fides, California and New York run neck and neck for the lead positions. In no field is this more true than in the area of “climate change,” which as progressive public policy turns into a program to drive up the cost of energy, suppress fossil fuels and anything else that works (nuclear), and demand creation of a new fantasy energy system based on the wind and the sun.

In recent years, California has seemed to pull well ahead of New York in the accumulation of climate virtue. California has had a so-called “renewable portfolio standard” for its generation of electricity since way back in 2002, and has been aggressively building wind and solar generation facilities ever since. In 2018, thinking that the way to achieving lower carbon emissions is to cover the countryside with wind turbines and solar panels, California upped its game with a bill known as SB 100, having the official title “The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018.” Among other things, SB 100 called for a 100% carbon-emissions-free electricity sector by 2045. As reported here a few weeks ago, in March the California energy regulatory agencies jointly came out with plans to reach the 100% by 2045 goal. Meanwhile, the California Energy Commission reports that in 2020 California achieved a level of 36% of its electricity generation from renewables.

So are we here in New York just going to stand around and let our butts get kicked by these upstarts? No! But we have some serious catching up to do. New York wasn’t nearly so ambitious as California in building wind and solar facilities in the first two decades of the 21st century. By 2019 New York got some 29% of its electricity from “renewable” sources. But the large majority of that came from the gigantic hydroelectric power plant at Niagara Falls, which somehow is seen by environmental moralists as lacking in climate virtue; and in any event there isn’t another Niagara Falls waiting to have a big hydro plant attached. Time to get serious! So in July 2019 New York enacted something called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), our own version of California’s SB 100.

But in fact the CLCPA is much more draconian than SB 100. While SB 100 covers the electricity sector of California’s economy with its 100% zero emissions goal, the CLCPA mandates that New York achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors of the economy. Specific targets are set for 40% reductions (from 1990 levels) by 2030 and 85% reductions by 2050, again, not just in the electricity sector, but in all sectors of the economy. The distinction is not trivial. Here is a chart from the federal EPA giving an approximate breakdown of emissions by economic sector for the entire country:

total-ghg-2021.png

As you can see, the electricity sector generates only about 25% of emissions nationwide. The transportation sector is even bigger, at 29%. That covers not just personal automobiles, but also air travel, plus trucks and trains for moving freight. Has anybody even thought yet about how to start “decarbonizing” air travel, let alone making substantial reductions by 2030? Agriculture and industry together account for 33%, and again nobody has much if any idea where to begin to “decarbonize.” And so forth.

So how are we going to do this? The CLCPA created a series of seven Advisory Panels for the different sectors of the economy, each of them charged with submitting recommendations as to how to accomplish the goals for the sector in question within the stated time frame. According to a bulletin issued by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, all of the Advisory Panels had submitted their recommendations by May 10, 2021.

This whole bureaucratic extravaganza is receiving next to no attention in our press as far as I can tell. However, a guy named Roger Caiazza, who runs a website called Practical Environmentalist of New York, has been putting out a post every few days where he goes through one or another of the presentations made by these Advisory Panels and offers some comments. At this point he has covered the reports of most of the Advisory Panels, although I have not found his comments on the Power Generation panel, which may be the most important of the bunch.

My overall comment about Mr. Caiazza’s work is that he is much nicer and more understated in his comments than I would be. Start reading these Advisory Panel presentations, and you cannot help immediately realizing that the whole exercise reads like a parody. It’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, where everyone involved in the exercise knows that it is absurd, but no one is allowed to say so, and everyone is required to take the whole thing with the utmost seriousness and never, ever crack a smile. After all, we are on a moral crusade to save the planet.

For today, I’ll just consider a couple of Mr. Caiazza’s posts. His May 24 post covers the recommendations of the Transportation Advisory Panel. The underlying presentation, some 56 pages long, can be found via link in Caiazza’s post. Although it’s 56 pages, the basic strategy is not difficult to state: simply declare any vehicle running on electricity or battery to be a “zero emissions vehicle,” and then issue a regulation mandating that all vehicles of each certain type be “zero emissions vehicles” by a date selected by the regulators. Nothing to it.

Thus the first type of vehicle discussed is “passenger vehicles,” and the strategy is encapsulated in this pithy one-liner: “Adopt zero emissions vehicle sales regulations.” See how easy that is? The time frame for implementation is given as “1-2 years.” (Do the people have any idea that this is coming? I don’t think so.). But anyway, we quickly move on to “trucks, buses and heavy equipment.” And the strategy? “Adopt zero emissions vehicle sales regulations.” It’s the same! And so is the time frame: “1-2 years.” Might it be a problem that electric semi trucks and buses and heavy equipment don’t even exist, let alone batteries and charging stations for them? That is not discussed here.

And by the way, I can’t find anything about airplanes in this document. Too bad — that would have been fun.

Caiazza comments: “The Transition to 100% zero-emission light duty vehicle sales enabling strategy exemplifies what I think is a major disconnect between the transportation planners and the public. I have attended stakeholder meetings for the Transportation Climate Initiative and listened to the true believers explain that there are so many advantages to electric vehicles that if only the public understood everyone would buy into the technology. However, even this strategy recognizes that “Lack of consumer awareness/interest and consumer concerns about technology & charging/fueling” are barriers to success. The ultimate problem with all of the clean energy technologies is that they all only work most of the time. Most of the time a light-duty electric vehicle might work well for me but several times a year I want to haul a big load in my mini-van several hundred miles and range anxiety is a very real concern.”

Talk about understatement!

Caiazza’s most recent post on May 31 comments on the submission of the Advisory Panel on Energy Efficiency and Housing. Buildings account for about 13% of emissions in the EPA chart, and apparently even more in New York, so this is a significant sector. Again, the presentation of the Advisory Panel can be found via link at Caiazza’s post.

The basic strategy of the panel recommendations is essentially the same: simply mandate that all buildings be “zero emissions” buy a date arbitrarily selected by regulators. “Zero emissions” means all-electric, and just assumes that all of this electricity can be generated by constructing more and yet more wind turbines and solar panels. So we are to mandate, via building codes that all new homes, and all renovations of existing homes, eliminate all use of fossil fuels. All oil and natural gas heating and cooking and clothes drying are to be verboten. Do the people know that this is coming? I don’t think so.

Caiazza: The plan is to amend the state codes for new construction, including additions and alterations, to require solar PV on “feasible” areas, grid-interactive electrical appliances, energy storage readiness, electric readiness for all appliance and electric vehicle readiness. They propose to adopt these all-electric state codes for single family residences by 2025 and for multifamily and commercial buildings by 2030. The presentation notes that by 2030, more than 200,000 homes per year will be upgraded to all-electric and energy efficient standards.

Some comments from Caiazza:

These are all aspirational gambits that . . . are [by] no means assured. The comment stating resilience is of critical importance is a hollow gesture. Fossil fuels provide more resilience in general and in the event of extreme weather such as an ice storm reliance on electric heat and renewable energy will have fatal consequences. Importantly, the public gets that and I doubt will not willingly give up the capabilities of natural gas and fuel oil for heating. . . . When I describe the limits on personal choices for energy use and added costs most people don’t accept that this could be possible. I believe that public backlash will be similar to what has been observed in Great Britain when the implications and costs become readily known.

Read the full article at The MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

5 11 votes
Article Rating
96 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
June 4, 2021 10:17 am

Nonsense brought on by science illiterates from the Socialist tribe.

griff
Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 5, 2021 12:59 am

I fail to see how a renewable energy programme is a tenet of socialism?

Editor
Reply to  griff
June 5, 2021 7:37 am

That is hilarious because you are apparently unaware that the States of California and New York are among the most socialist oriented states in America.

California started their wind power drive back in the 1970’s with strong environmentalist opposition, which today hardly exist anymore because such Ecoloonies groups have a strong socialist base in the organization.

Last edited 4 months ago by Sunsettommy
LdB
Reply to  griff
June 6, 2021 9:26 am

So perhaps learn something … not all socialism but there is a movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

The have a stated aim

Eco-socialists advocate dismantling capitalism, focusing on common ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers, and restoring the common

ResourceGuy
June 4, 2021 10:19 am

It’s unfortunate that the main policy test sites are California and New York because both have greater access to cheap, large-scale legacy hydropower in the Bonneville Power Authority and Hydro Quebec. That access needs to be turned off for a true test of crazy before they are held up as some kind of example for states and regions without easy access to those special assets. Take down those transmission lines!!

sendergreen
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 4, 2021 11:45 am

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe New York State has banned new installations of residential natural gas. New York gets famous winter storms, and the northern section gets heavy volumes of snow each winter. With some indications already that the coming winter (2021-2022) is likely to be more cold, and heavy snow would you with a choice, build there? Can anyone tell me what New York thinks of wood, coal, and oil heating for the time being ?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  sendergreen
June 4, 2021 12:45 pm

De Blasio’s New York City, not the whole state. And I think a couple of the adjacent suburban counties.

The bigger hookup state ‘ban’ comes when, because NY has refused to build a pipeline to the Marcellus, there is insufficient natgas to hook up to.

Felix
Reply to  sendergreen
June 4, 2021 2:25 pm

“With some indications already that the coming winter (2021-2022) is likely to be more cold, and heavy snow”

I’d like to see come citations for that! Anyone who trusts either models or the Farmer’s Almanac is not someone I’ll just take their word on for six months in the future.

sendergreen
Reply to  Felix
June 4, 2021 3:47 pm

How Dare You ?

: ) gimme a minute. It’s Direct Weather Channel, not scientific papers.

sendergreen
Reply to  Felix
June 4, 2021 3:49 pm
John Hultquist
Reply to  sendergreen
June 4, 2021 6:52 pm

Important information from a site selling winter masks.
Hmmm!

markl
June 4, 2021 10:20 am

Despite all the virtue signaling don’t believe a word from California about the renewable energy contribution to their grid. They consistently quote nameplate ratings over actual returns and don’t mention electricity brought in from other states. Smoke and mirrors. Hollywood.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  markl
June 5, 2021 5:00 am

“and don’t mention electricity brought in from other states”

Importing out-of-State electricity is the only thing keeping California in the game.

The Delusion is strong in California.

Joel
Reply to  markl
June 6, 2021 5:50 am

They import 92% of their natural gas.

Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 10:30 am

Glad to see that New York has volunteered to be another climate crash test dummy. The more, the merrier.

Burgher King
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 11:38 am

When the two crashes happen, one in New York and one in California, the two crash test dummies will never admit they’ve been in a crash. Count on it.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Burgher King
June 4, 2021 12:07 pm

Probably true. That is why they are dummies. But the rest of us get to watch and learn.

MarkW
Reply to  Burgher King
June 4, 2021 1:29 pm

They are still trying to claim that the grid crashing in TX this past winter had absolutely nothing to do with “renewable” power.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
June 5, 2021 5:03 am

If they admit the windmills were the problem, then that puts a damper on the building of new windmills, so they are going to push back against the notion that the windmills were at fault for as long as they can.

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 1:51 pm

Unfortunately, it won’t be the mindless climate zealots who freeze in the dark. Mourn them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 5, 2021 5:01 am

The only bad thing about using California and New York as crashtest dummies is they are two of the biggest economies in the U.S. Their failures will have economic repurcussions for all of us.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 5, 2021 1:10 pm

That’s all right. By then the majority of their economy will have been safely moved to Texas and Florida. By the time they figure out how bad they’ve screwed things up there won’t be enough left to worry about.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joe Crawford
June 6, 2021 3:44 am

“That’s all right. By then the majority of their economy will have been safely moved to Texas and Florida.”

There is that. 🙂

It was reported yesterday that Texas and Florida have gained seats in Congress and New York and California has lost seats in Congress because of population shifts, which helps Republicans with the Electoral College.

Trump said last night he doesn’t believe the U.S. is divided 50/50. He thinks Blue States use vote cheating to make it appear that they are Blue States.

I love Trump! He’s always thinking outside the box.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Gelsthorpe
June 4, 2021 10:30 am

These green imperatives are based on Tinker Belle-onomics. Call in a fairy who can fly, ask her to wave her magic wand and sprinkle pixie dust, and PRESTO!

A whole new fantasy world comes into being where economics and the Laws of Thermodynamics no longer apply. Spanking clean, new machines appear out of nowhere, and everyone can have whatever they want just by asking.

it’s MAGIC, so why bother with prior, tedious details?

Felix
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
June 4, 2021 2:27 pm

I call i the Pharaoh Syndrome. “So let it be written, so let it be done” and presto! problem solved.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Felix
June 5, 2021 5:04 am

That’s about the size of it with Democrats. They never think about unintended consequences.

Dr Dave
June 4, 2021 10:32 am

There are lib made laws and the laws of Physics… they’re mutually exclusive.

June 4, 2021 10:37 am

I’m just curious about the results of that suicidal procedere.
Do it and we will see. Can’t wait.
But for the one or the other to change domicile couldt be an option 😀

Jan de Jong
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 5, 2021 4:09 am

Florida better close the state borders.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jan de Jong
June 5, 2021 5:05 am

Or at least have a political test for entry.

Gregory Woods
June 4, 2021 10:39 am

Meanwhile, the California Energy Commission reports that in 2020 California achieved a level of 36% of its electricity generation from renewables.

Can somebody here please explain that to me? Or is it just nameplate capacity?

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Gregory Woods
June 4, 2021 11:23 am

Gregory, I quickly skimmed the document you linked to, and it notes that electricity retail sales have dropped because of California rooftop solar initiatives, which have the effect of drastically reducing the demand for electricity from utilities while the sun is shining. If you’ve ever seen the California “duck curve” you can see that tremendous amounts of power are produced, both from large scale utility installations and behind the meter at homes, during the day. At night, of course, other forms of generation are called on. I suspect that decrease in demand during the day is one reason that renewables can supply a large portion of electricity.

If I’m right, there isn’t much room for more solar in the system without substantial battery installations, which are fairly expensive and otherwise impractical on a large scale. That means further incremental gains will be far tougher to achieve than previous advances. Furthermore, the cost of backing up renewables is pretty expensive, and the life cycle GHGs generated by production of the solar panels and other aspects of the distributed energy home solar installations that allows the reduction in demand are pretty high.

California is proof that you can generate large amounts of power from renewables. It is also a study in how expensive it is to do so.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 4, 2021 11:40 am

thanks G

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 4, 2021 1:33 pm

The big problem with renewables, is that you still need the same amount of non-renewable power (gas, coal, nuclear) regardless of how much “renewable” energy sources you have.
The cost of building the non-renewable sources doesn’t go down.
The cost of running the non-renewable sources doesn’t go down.
All you have done is added the cost of building and running the “renewable” sources to the mix.

David A
Reply to  MarkW
June 4, 2021 8:41 pm

In truth, the cost of running the non-renewable generation substantially rises.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 4, 2021 5:28 pm

The fundamental “Duck Curve” problem is that while summer loads peak around 6 to 9 pm in CA, solar drops dramatically during that timeframe. It is the extremely uneconomic ramping up of FF generation during that period that screws utility ratemaking.

In addition to adding excess costs related to unreliables, the powers that be must also subsidize otherwise uneconomic usage of FF resources. Texas got cute and only paid for energy, thereby canceling FF additions in favor of subsidized unreliable generation. When the shit hit the fan this winter, there wasn’t sufficient unsubsidized FF generation.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Gregory Woods
June 4, 2021 11:34 am

Sources of California in-state electricity generation: 2018.
This accounted for 68% of CA’s demand in 2018; the remaining 32% was imported.
  Natural gas (47%)
  Renewables – Solar (14%)
  Renewables – Wind (7%)
  Renewables – Other (Geothermal, biomass, etc.) (11%)
  Large hydro (11%)
  Nuclear (9%)

So solar and wind accounted for 21% of 68% of electricity generation which comes to 14%.

Last edited 4 months ago by Bill Toland
Joel
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 6, 2021 5:54 am

They import 92% of their natural gas.

June 4, 2021 10:39 am

Idiots voting for idiots get idiots and idiotic decisions.

Dr. Bob
June 4, 2021 10:41 am

California gets a lot of diesel fuel from renewable sources, but even these don’t have Zero Carbon Emissions. The best are an 80% reduction in Carbon Intensity from conventional diesel fuel, but most are 40-60% reduction. The feedstocks for these fuels are Fats, Oils, & Greases, collectively known as FOG. The actual sources are Used Cooking Oil (UCO, limited in availability and widely dispersed requiring significant collection costs and energy expenditure), Vegetable Oils (mostly SoyOil with a CI of 40 to 60, so not that green), and animal fats (but they want to get rid of all animals, so goodbye to a good source of fats). Finally there is Corn Oil derived from ethanol production from corn.
A lot of this oil comes from Singapore as Neste Oil has a very large plant there that collects FOG from the region and ships it to CA where they get a hansom profit on it. This includes the California Low Carbon Fuels Standard, the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, and the Blenders Tax Credit. All these costs are passed on to the consumer which adds over $1/gal to the price of fuel. NY can look forward to this sticker shock as well, and other shocks when the full cost of going green is realized.

MarkW
Reply to  Dr. Bob
June 4, 2021 1:36 pm

where they get a hansom profit on it

At least somebody is benefitting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansom_cab

PCman999
Reply to  Dr. Bob
June 5, 2021 12:27 am

I guess the carbon footprint of shipping the oil from Singapore to Cali gets quietly buried…

Ian W
Reply to  PCman999
June 5, 2021 7:50 am

The carbon footprint of shipping the oil to NY will be a little higher – unless the ‘greens’ allow a FOG pipeline – if that is feasible from say LA to NYC

Oddgeir
June 4, 2021 10:49 am

“The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018”

“the CLCPA mandates that New York achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors of the economy”

They will be impossible to implement. Not to mention that they are mandating clean and zero greenhouse gas emissions.

As we are headed for CCUS, with the current legislation in place, anyone is allowed to burn as much fossils as they very well please IF there is no release of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

Decarbonized fuels and carbon capture are coming. These decarbonized fuels and CCUS will kill all business models based on wind and solar.

Off course it will take a while until refineries, electricity producers, gas boilers, vehicles will have refurbished and/or be hydrogen/ammonia ready, but it is coming.

Wind and solar are zombies. They are dead but haven’t received the memo yet.

Oddgeir

Leo Smith
Reply to  Oddgeir
June 4, 2021 1:56 pm

Decarbonized fuels and carbon capture are coming.

So are the Martians.

PCman999
Reply to  Oddgeir
June 5, 2021 12:37 am

Hydrogen and ammonia are unicorn dreams to keep green true believers from losing their religion. Has nothing to do with viable energy sources. Carbon capture might work as way to meet the spirit of law, but ultimately alarmists will move the goalposts to kill fossil fuels. I’m surprised that I haven’t heard of the best way to do carbon capture, at least near the coasts – run a pipeline from the powerplants to the bottom of the ocean and pump away. The cold water down there, even at only shallower depths, can absorb all the CO2 we could ever make, and plankton would love all the extra food, as would all the fish.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  PCman999
June 5, 2021 2:03 pm

Yes, but they’re already complaining about ocean acidification. They’ll never go for it :<)

Tom
June 4, 2021 11:01 am

I looked at the California report and did not seem to see how much of the 36% renewables was wind and solar vs others such as geothermal and hydro. Is it there somewhere?

Oldseadog
June 4, 2021 11:02 am

Well now, the BBC news has just put out a piece about 50% of Glasgow’s buses being electric in two years. The vehicles can operate for a full normal day’s milage on just one overnight charge ‘cos the battery is so big. The bus company guy said it is so big it can provide a fortnight’s worth of power for a house.
The city fathers are going to install enough charging points so that soon the whole fleet can be electric, and when the buses aren’t using the facilities the public can do so.

Buy copper futures.

I have a flock of breeding Unicorns and can supply as many as you like, together with the popcorn required to feed them with.

Or you can eat the popcorn yourseves while watching the whole scheme collapse.

MarkW
Reply to  Oldseadog
June 4, 2021 1:38 pm

when the buses aren’t using the facilities the public can do so

At no cost to the EV owners. And in the next breath EV owners will proclaim that they get no subsidies.

Redge
Reply to  Oldseadog
June 4, 2021 11:44 pm

The really daft thing about this idea is using electric buses is already a tried and trusted technology: Trolleybuses.

The part where they’re going wrong is using batteries powered by unicorn farts.

lmo
June 4, 2021 11:17 am

In my youth I remember laughing at the Monty Python skit of “How to rid the world of all know diseases”.

This looks to be about as plausible.

Leo Smith
Reply to  lmo
June 4, 2021 2:00 pm

Well I thought they had closed all ‘public facilities’ years ago, because of cottaging and heroin.

I suppose the buses will need them because the whole idea is full of ….

David Kamakaris
June 4, 2021 11:18 am

The attached picture was my back yard growing up in Allegany County, NY in the 1960s. It has changed little since then.
Seriously, wouldn’t this scene be so much more aesthetically appealing if the hillsides were plastered with windmills?

FB_IMG_1553046101274_resized(1).jpg
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 4, 2021 11:37 am

and the valleys with solar “farms”

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 4, 2021 12:38 pm

Reminds me of the song that goes:
“The hills are alive
With the sound of bird choppers…”

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 4, 2021 1:39 pm

The sound of government subsidized profits.

Maybe that’s what Julie Andrews was singing about?

David Kamakaris
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 4, 2021 2:34 pm

Can anyone photoshop this photo by plastering it with windmills?

Redge
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 5, 2021 12:17 am

If only they used a little colour in the blades it would be ok

hillscape.jpg
Mr.
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 4, 2021 3:13 pm

Seriously, wouldn’t this scene be so much more aesthetically appealing if the hillsides were plastered with windmills?

Depends what colors they were.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mr.
June 4, 2021 5:37 pm

Tillamook County, OR demanded we paint our HV transmission towers light blue to harmonize with the ocean view. When facing the mountainsides from the ocean side, they were hideous. Luckily, over time they just faded to grey. Much like life.

Joseph Zorzin
June 4, 2021 11:33 am

“the CLCPA mandates that New York achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors of the economy. Specific targets are set for 40% reductions (from 1990 levels) by 2030 and 85% reductions by 2050″

Massachusetts has them beat- it’s net zero goal is zero emissions from all sectors by 2050. But the state government has no clue how to do it. Since they understand some emissions might be unavoidable- like farm tractors needing diesel fuel- they’re looking for ways to remove “carbon pollution” from the atmosphere. Some idiots are saying one way is to lock up all the forests.

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 4, 2021 1:40 pm

I’d rather lock up all the legislators.

sendergreen
June 4, 2021 11:38 am

I just saw a YouTube video late last night with a short piece from a Chicago TV Station News Station. Reporting the immense number of people who left ( fled ) Chicago in the last tax year. Info came from IRS. The last I read, Chicago has about 15 cents on the dollar for it’s future municipal pension obligations. And, a substantial part of it’s tax base has left. Chicago is circling the drain. It’s not alone.

Last edited 4 months ago by sendergreen
Tom Abbott
Reply to  sendergreen
June 5, 2021 5:17 am

“The last I read, Chicago has about 15 cents on the dollar for it’s future municipal pension obligations.”

I think ole Biden is planning on bailing out all the bankrupt pension funds. Got to help those unions!

Denis Rushworth
June 4, 2021 11:43 am

I have the solution. My new company will produce zero emission extension cords. The technology is new and as you can appreciate fully proprietary. It will work for meeting any electricity demand in aircraft, trucks, busses, cars of any type and industry, home and agriculture as well. I am presently preparing an offer to the NYS energy authorities to meet all electricity needs of the State and its citizens and businesses with my cords. All that is required of the State is a law requiring use of my product. Watch these pages for the announcement of an IPO so you can cash in as well!

Pat Lane
Reply to  Denis Rushworth
June 4, 2021 3:24 pm

The next step will be wireless extension chords.

Carlo, Monte
June 4, 2021 11:49 am

Wait for the next brutal upstate NY winter.

Beta Blocker
June 4, 2021 12:09 pm

Roger Pielke Jr. notes that reaching President Biden’s target of a 50% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2030 requires that on average, at least one coal or gas-fired power plant must be closed every month for the next nine years.

If climate activists truly believe that reaching Biden’s 2030 target is critical for saving the planet, shouldn’t they be demanding that these plants be closed on schedule, even if not enough new wind and solar is available by 2030 to cover the capacity shortfall?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Beta Blocker
June 4, 2021 12:51 pm

Biden also thinks the Southern border is secured, that China is our friend, that Fauci is great, that AOC is a genius for promoting GND, and that he actually won the 2020 election. None of which is true, either.

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 1:42 pm

Biden said that Fauci has been a great asset.

And for the Democrats he has been. His willingness to lie about COVID-19 has created lots of votes for them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 5, 2021 5:30 am

Biden doesn’t think the border is secure, he knows it is wide open, and that’s the way he wants it. Biden said during the election campaign that the United States could easily take in two million illegal aliens in a year, and I think he is shooting for that figure this year.

I think Governor Abbott of Texas is going to push back on this . He says he is getting ready to have all Texas law enforcement and National Guard arresting everyone that comes across the Texas border illegally. If the Federal Government won’t do it’s duty to protect the U.S. from invasion, then the U.S. Constitution gives States the right to defend themselves, and that is what Governor Abbott and possibly a few other souther governors are getting ready to do. Biden is not going to have everything his way.

Biden doesn’t think China is our friend, it’s just that he can’t criticize them too harshly or they will reveal all the dishonest deals the Biden family has done with the Chicoms.

So Biden talks a little tough about China and does nothing. The same thing with the Russians. Biden has been in bed with both of them and so is in a compromised position, which means the United States is in a compromised condition, too.

There are criminals and traitors running the United States right now. We need to oust them from office as soon as possible.

Trump is giving his first public, political speech tonight at a political rally. Trump says he might be interested in becoming Speaker of the House of Representatives in January 2023. I would love to see that happen! Hand over that gavel, Nancy! She would probably throw it at Trump.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 5, 2021 5:58 am

At the right time, I would like to see Rep. McCarthy, the current Republican Minority Leader in the House of Representatives and future Speaker of the House of Representatives, assuming Republicans take control of the House in 2023, to voluntarily step aside temporarily as a contender for Speaker of the House and promote Trump for that office.

Trump would be Speaker until he started his run for president in 2024, and McCarthy could be second in command and take over the Speakers position when Trump leaves.

I think McCarthy would have to voluntarily defer to Trump for Trump to seriously consider doing this. Trump was singing McCarthy’s praises just a few days ago, so I don’t think Trump would want to enter into a competition with McCarthy, but if McCarthy volunteered to step aside temporarily, then Trump might consider making this move.

Trump does not have to be elected to the House of Representatives to become Speaker of the House. The members of the House can elect *anyone* they desire, and that person does not have to be a member of Congress.

So Trump doesn’t even have to run for office. All he has to do is get members of the House of Representatives in line behind him. Maybe make that a campaign issue next time, assuming McCarthy has deferred by then. Question for the Republican candidate: Do you support electing Trump as Speaker of the House of Representatives if we elect you and send you to Congress?

You gotta love Trump! He keeps the pot boiling!

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 5, 2021 7:51 am

Rud Istvan: “Biden also thinks the Southern border is secured, that China is our friend, that Fauci is great, that AOC is a genius for promoting GND, and that he actually won the 2020 election. None of which is true, either.”

Every climate activist I know personally, and there are a number of them, voted for Joe Biden. But even these people know he is merely a figurehead for a committee of advisors operating behind the scenes who make every decision he announces.

For the last six years, I’ve been asking these climate activists why it was that they — along with the government administrators who between 2009 and 2016 were supposedly acting in accordance with their activist agenda — why didn’t they pursue an expanded use of the Clean Air Act in reducing America’s greenhouse gas emissions, building upon the solid legal foundation they themselves had established between 2007 and 2012 for aggressive application of the act?

Following their victories in the courts between 2010 and 2012, why didn’t the climate activists publish a CAA Section 108 Endangerment Finding to complement 2009’s Section 202 finding? Why didn’t they set a NAAQS for carbon? Why didn’t they declare carbon dioxide and other carbon GHG’s to be hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) when present in concentrations which are said to amplify global warming?

Why didn’t they build upon the Supreme Court’s ruling concerning Obamacare that a ‘fine’ can be considered a tax — and can be administered as a tax — and use that court decision as a justification for publishing a schedule of EPA carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon?

Why didn’t President Obama declare a climate emergency in 2013 and use powers granted to the president under national security law to begin the process of quickly decarbonizing America’s economy?

Their response over the last six years to these pointed questions has generally been either to deflect the questions into some aspect of the climate science debate, as opposed to the climate policy debate; or else to clam up and refuse to discuss any of my questions at all.

Last edited 4 months ago by Beta Blocker
Lee L
Reply to  Beta Blocker
June 4, 2021 2:06 pm

Beta blocker wrote:
“Roger Pielke Jr. notes that reaching President Biden’s target of a 50% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2030 requires that on average, at least one coal or gas-fired power plant must be closed every month for the next nine years.”

China will be ecstatic to hear this as that target will free up global GHG emission space allowing China’s regions to build coal fired electric plants and they’ll be fully offset even before construction starts. At one point China was bringing a brand new coal fired plant onstream every 5 days in its own country. It now also finances most of the new coal fired construction worldwide. These plants too will continue to operate for a long time.

Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 12:58 pm

Came back for a second post. I find it amazing that the previous seemingly uncontroversial post using math to show the misnamed GHE must exist has drawn over 200 comments revealing much misunderstanding and resulting controversy, while this post exposing a very controversial NY state policy driven by GHE hasn’t attracted similar attention. Dunno why. Odd.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 1:41 pm

Debate over the specifics of climate science issues is being used as a debating proxy for the messy specifics of the implied policy decisions which would flow from that science — decisions which might require sacrifice on the part of the public and which would therefore generate real controversy as opposed to the faux controversy useful only for promoting one’s favorite agenda.

Last edited 4 months ago by Beta Blocker
MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 1:42 pm

Points skewering religious icons often draw a lot of attention from the acolytes.

John Garrett
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 4, 2021 2:49 pm

Rud,
Lots of folk read Manhattan Contrarian and may have already seen this post there.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  John Garrett
June 4, 2021 2:59 pm

JG, possibly so. Great observation.
Maybe fewer read Polar Bear Science and Climate Etc, but those cross posts (WUWT as a circulation widening means) always seem to draw lots of comments.

Olen
June 4, 2021 1:50 pm

Here is a novel idea, changed your representation from climate emergency to people friendly.

fretslider
June 4, 2021 2:01 pm

“I believe that public backlash will be similar to what has been observed in Great Britain”

What can he mean?

What backlash?

Redge
Reply to  fretslider
June 5, 2021 12:21 am

My thoughts too.

The sheeple are on board with all this CO2 carp

Rick C
June 4, 2021 3:23 pm

As the post points out about 25% of energy required is currently for electricity generation. Since their solutions are “electrical everything” they will need to generate 4 times as much electricity with sources that only produce power about 1/3 of the time. So that’s 12 times the current total electricity name plate capacity and the need for storage of about 8 times current generation capacity for at least several days. Such an undertaking would be the largest scale infrastructure project ever. It would certainly take decades to pull off. The cost is incalculable since much of the technology required does not yet exist.

I propose instead that we build four lane highway bridges from California to Hawaii and New York to England. The costs and feasibility would be roughly the same.

June 4, 2021 3:27 pm

Well,

As an old electronics tech, I learned that sometimes it was best to let something fail to be able to troubleshoot the problem. That cussed problem that cropped up occasionally could then be fixed.

Our present political situation with “science” put me in mind of a story from a bunch of years ago.
It seems a friend’s daughter was driving home from college. The car was making an unusual noise. So the daughter kept turning up the radio to mask the noise. As the long journey continued the radio got louder and louder. Finally the power steering pump failed. Luckily where the anxious father and daughter had agreed to meet up.

While I’m not sure that rescue will happen as that did, perhaps it’s best to sit by and let the system fail, then reassemble it the right way. At present what we have is a majority of folks turning up the radio, but the failure is coming.

Mike – and thanks to all of you who use this site…Anthony, job well done and continuing!

Neville
June 4, 2021 3:32 pm

Here’s a problem for the USA or EU or ….. to consider.
NZ has estimated that net zero by 2050 would cost the NZ economy about 5 trillion $ and they emit just 0.1% of global emissions.
Lomborg’s expert team agrees with the NZ sums, so entire USA would cost about 690 T $ and EU about 490 T $.
Anyone starting TO SEE ANY PROBLEMS?? And this has to be covered by batteries or FFs or Nuclear etc for when you have heat waves or ice storms or etc, etc.

Sara
June 4, 2021 6:58 pm

I sincerely hope that they enjoy the lack of hot water on demand, the loss of power to charge their computer batteries, and the waste of fresh foods when the fridge won’t keep that stuff cold, never mind the loss of air conditioning on their demand.

I’ve been through several power outages and still don’t know which one is worse: power outage in the winter when you need the furnace, or power outage in the summer when you’re running the clothes dryer and it just shuts off, along with your fridge, clocks, lights, and charging spot for yer precious iPhoes.

Have a nice, powerless day!

Abolition Man
June 4, 2021 7:19 pm

One advantage for New Yawkas over Commifornians is that when a serious winter storm event hits in the next few years, the New Yawkas will be burning furniture and other combustibles to keep from freezing! This makes igniting torches to accompany their pitchforks much easier.
Commifornians will have to wait until their local area is being incinerated in one of the Bureau of Forestry Mismanagement’s megafires, which makes lighting torches without severe burns problematic. Fortunately the state government is issuing magnifying glasses for natural insect control, and these can be used except during cloudy weather or night; matches and lighters are being banned for their carbon footprint!

Vincent Causey
June 5, 2021 12:05 am

I’m still waiting for the public backlash the article says is supposed to be happening in the UK.

griff
June 5, 2021 12:58 am

 Has anybody even thought yet about how to start “decarbonizing” air travel, let alone making substantial reductions by 2030? 

Yes. Of course they have.

Decarbonising Aviation – Responsible Tourism Partnership

Agriculture and industry together account for 33%, and again nobody has much if any idea where to begin to “decarbonize.”

Ridiculous assertion. Of course they have!

Decarbonising UK agriculture | Rothamsted Research

Thomas Gasloli
June 5, 2021 6:46 am

It is really quite simple, New York will reach its goal by everyone moving to another state. Florida had better construct a wall on its northern border to stem the flow of migrants.😃

Barnes Moore
June 5, 2021 8:01 am

As I have said before, the sooner some major catastrophe occurs due to over-reliance on unreliables, the better since no amount of facts, analysis, and data will persuade the ignorant masses. “It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.” -Thomas Sowell. The cause will have to be so clearly due to the failure of unreliables that blame cannot in any way be shifted to FF, which is what the media was able to do with some success re: Texas even though any thorough analysis clearly showed that the problem was largely due to replacing reliable energy sources with unreliables. Unfortunately, when the failure occurs, it is highly unlikely that those who drove the initiatives toward this madness will be held accountable.

Andy Pattullo
June 5, 2021 8:31 am

One day soon the states of California and New York will be distant memories and children will be told cautionary tales about the risk of believing in magic.

TonyG
June 5, 2021 3:04 pm

So if I’m understanding that correctly – no more sales of ICE vehicles at all within 1-2 years?

Gotta say I rather hope they do this. Let’s see how it ends up.

Don George
June 6, 2021 2:16 am

Once again, the climate alarmists don’t care about reality of industry, transportation, etc.
They just use their magic pen to sign magic laws that will turn the world into their fantasyland

June 8, 2021 6:53 am

This is the simple Productivity / Capacity percentage reason why Solar and Wind power are just not viable. Across Germany, the UK and France in 2019 they actually only operated 1 day in five.

DEUKFR productivity.png
%d bloggers like this: