By Neel Brown
Berkeley, California is arguably the most liberal city in the U.S. Tourist shops sell t-shirts touting its identity as a leftist hub. The city is overwhelmingly white and wealthy, with large Asian and small Black minority populations, a median household income over $100,000, and median home value of nearly $1.3 million. When we think of the liberal elite, we think of Berkeley. So when residents last week voted down a new fossil fuel tax, it came as a rude surprise to green activists across the country.
On the Berkeley ballot this November was a local initiative that would have imposed a heavy tax on large buildings that used natural gas for heating, cooking, and for other purposes. Proponents argued that the measure would help rid us of fossil fuel use, following a trend across the country in which climate activists look for every opportunity to shut down natural gas.
In a resounding rebuke, Berkeley voters rejected the ballot measure 68% to 32%, sending the message that they were not interested in sacrificing their use of natural gas for any climate benefit that they thought it would net. To soothe their nagging climate conscience, donations to environmental activists will surely flow forth from Berkeley. The ability to avoid any sacrifice in the name of climate change only to demand those sacrifices from other, less wealthy communities is an environmentalist privilege that does not go unnoticed by working class Americans.
Effective federally-focused environmental activism will likely be on the wane following the Trump win and the ascension of an unfriendly bureaucracy. With hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, these groups will turn their money and organizers on state and local governments in an attempt to rid them of natural gas infrastructure.
This strategy is a mistake. The Americans who live in our biggest cities are burdened by high energy costs, unreliable electricity grids, and often live in neighborhoods with inadequate infrastructure and inefficient, aging homes. The problems are worst in the parts of these cities with histories of segregation and redlining, and the disproportionately Black residents of these struggling communities are those who can least afford the additional energy burden brought by constricting energy supplies. While cities are the most efficient places to live in terms of carbon emissions, cities also have a crippling energy burden that falls mostly on these communities that cannot afford to weather the price volatility and reduced reliability that comes with removing vital energy infrastructure. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) will be publishing a report on the energy burden in cities this year.
In addition to the important benefits, there are costs involved in modernizing our outdated energy systems and moving toward a greener, lower-carbon future. PPI works to inform decision makers about those costs, who is being asked to bear them, and how to minimize their impact. The U.S. needs a climate policy that reduces carbon emissions, encourages innovation in clean energy generation and transmission, meets the energy demands of households and businesses, and, critically, does so without laying the cost of that transition on the people who can least afford it. Continuing down the path of left-wing environmentalism is a political dead end for these working-class communities. Instead, we need a political push for effective and pragmatic state and local energy policy for deep blue states that shows we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut the household costs that burden disadvantaged communities.
City leaders should be on the lookout for dead-end environmental activists in their towns, fresh from a fundraiser in Berkeley, CA, demanding that their own community make sacrifices of cost, reliability, and convenience that Berkeley won’t in the name of climate justice. Watch closely what the funders of environmental activists do in their own communities while they make demands on others.
In this recent election, the wealthy elite in Berkeley said to environmental activists, “We’ll keep our natural gas. Here’s some money. Go tell the poor people to get rid of theirs.”
Is that just?
Neel Brown is Managing Director at the Progressive Policy Institute. Fnd Neel’s bio here.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Berkeley voters rejected the ballot measure 68% to 32%,
________________________________________________
First chuckle of my day (-:
Most “green” initiatives act as a very regressive tax, but actually knowing econ is something the Green Blob pretends to ignore. They do despise the poor, but claim not to.
Greens despise anyone that does subscribe to their credo, which they believe endows them with an unimpeachable moral superiority.
Whoops: …..that does NOT subscribe to their credo.
Most of them do despise everyone. You agree with their stated credo and they will work with you, take advantage of your abilities through compliment, act friendly, accept your help (and take advantage of you), but they despise everyone but themselves.
So, yes. They despise anyone that does, or does not, subscribe to their desires.
Yep.
If you agree with a greenie, they’ll look at you suspiciously, seeking dishonesty in your response.
See, dishonesty is a trait that greenies are very tuned into, because that’s their main modus operandi in everything they say and do.
Excellent – they clearly read their papers.
A two-day climate conference in Prague, organised by the Czech division of the international Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel), which took place on November 12-13 (2024) in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague declares and affirms that the imagined and imaginary climate emergency is now at an end.
So they are entirely right.
Very few emit any significant levels of carbon. Everyone exhales measurable carbon dioxide, however.
I knew one woman, with a masters in psych, who thought “carbon pollution” was referring to soot.
I knew one woman, with a masters in Environmental Justice, who insisted that a large diamond be presented to her before any other advancement of affection could take place.
At least in a diamond a large amount of the evil “Carbon” is captured.
But you can burn diamonds and release the evil carbon.
LOL. It becomes CO2.
I disagree with a lot of the rhetoric in the article.
The major point I agree with.
Agreed, a lot of the article swallows the low-carbon anti-CO2 meme hook, line and sinker.
Several statements made about the need for a “low-carbon” future, etc are just plain balderdash.
“toward a greener, lower-carbon future”
“needs a climate policy that reduces carbon emissions, “…
Not needed.. CO2 is what makes the planet green, we need more of it, not less.
CO2 is the green gas. !
Wind and solar are the very opposite of “green” requiring large amounts of toxic chemicals to get the required materials, and destroying the landscape and environment where-ever that are installed.
“The U.S. needs a climate policy that reduces carbon emissions….”
Really?
“we need a political push for effective and pragmatic state and local energy policy for deep blue states that shows we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut the household costs that burden disadvantaged communities. ”
Say what?
push away…
They have been pushing for the last 12 years. Their recent loss is reflective of their push.
So I get downvoted for disagreeing with that same rhetoric?
Too funny.
You were upvoted, by the way.
I think people just mis-interpreted what you meant 🙂
I saw what you meant, and expounded on it… and you started getting + votes 🙂
And you need to add sarcastic marks if you’re being sarcastic. It’s hard to tell most of the time.
Exactly. Nice how that line was slipped into an otherwise sensible statement.
The US already has a climate policy that reduces carbon emissions. The US has reduced the amount of it’s carbon emissions since 1990 by 26%.
The effect on worldwide emissions of carbon has been absolutely nothing. At some point, people realize that playing a game that you can only lose becomes a ridiculous endeavor.
We started reducing carbon emissions in the 1970s.
We started reducing CO2 emissions in the 1990s.
CO2 is not carbon.
Article says:”…greener, lower-carbon future.”
This bassackwards. A higher carbon future is also a greener future. If the the writer really believes this they don’t understand the basics of life. If it is virtue signaling just stop..
Carbon is not what makes plants grow.
CO2 is.
Activists believe their demands are for everyone’s benefit. Consequences only enter the picture when it directly affects them, if they realize it. Saving the world is a noble cause until it means they have to give up something they need or want.
I am unconvinced the Activists believe their demands are for everyone’s benefit.
I believe activists believe their demands should be met merely because they are demanding, usually in binary terms of you fully agree or you are the enemy and shall be silenced.
Since when did the rich play fair? Bezos made billions during Covid lockdowns as Amazon was allowed to continue trading whilst all ‘normal’ SME businesses were told to close down. It was the biggest transfer of wealth to one unworthy billionaire in decades.
It’s just what you’d expect.
In the mid 1980’s, I worked for a company that sold privately owned pay telephones in the San Francisco Bay area. Then, the median price of a house in San Francisco was $300,000 and not much lower in Berkeley.
I installed and maintained these privately owned pay telephones in numerous businesses like bars, fuel stations, grocery stores, etc. Berkeley was strange even then and like an entirely different country compared to the surrounding cities.
When I was a kid, my Dad got ahold of a payphone and had it installed in our kitchen.
It functioned as a regular phone, no coins required.
He had it put in to remind my older teenage sisters to spend less time on the phone. 😎
(This would have been late ’60’s to early ’70’s.)
Climate justice and so-called critical theory is utter bolleaux.
Critical climate justice
https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/geoj.12417
But then we knew that..
Washington State voters, likewise, did not want to get rid of gas.
Meanwhile, the Seattle area electricity (RE: “unreliable electricity grids”) suffered another confrontation with strong winds. The poles and wires lost. Thousands lost power.
Obviously (/sarc) wind and solar solves that problem.
😂 🤣 😅 😆
Yeah, just check out those pictures of all that functioning wind and solar in Puerto Rico after Maria passed through. Oh wait!
I saw similar in Florida, Oklahoma, Taiwan,…..
” encourages innovation in clean energy generation“
” encourages development of nuclear generating stations” — There, fixed it for you.🤠
If you have plenty of gas and coal available, nuclear is not necessary.
Eventually, yes, so time to “get it right”… don’t rush it and make mistakes.
“The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) will be publishing a report on the energy burden in cities this year.
In addition to the important benefits, there are costs involved in modernizing our outdated energy systems and moving toward a greener, lower-carbon future. PPI works to inform decision makers about those costs, who is being asked to bear them, and how to minimize their impact.“
They lobby the decision makers to minimize (hide) the costs that would otherwise evenly/justly be carried by those that they can dupe into supporting PPI policies.
There is a very simple solution to this mess. Shut off gas to all government properties, disable all gasoline and diesel vehicles and ration electricity to government. Government only gets the percentage of electricity generated by wind and solar. We don’t have a climate problem, we don’t have a science problem we have a government problem. The sooner we address it the better.
BULLSHIT!
The US “needs” no such thing! It needs 24/7, reliable, affordable electricity. And affordable gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil (but I repeat myself), propane and natural gas.
THERE IS NO “clean” energy, and there is no method to produce energy that does not cause a continuous stream of “carbon emissions,” be it from combustion or serial manufacturing of crap that can’t replace combustion anyway.
In British Columbia, 97% of the electricity is now generated by clean hydro. BC Hydro has a video on the new Site C dam, which is the largest earthen-filled dam ever built.
It cost $16 billion and took 10 years to built.
Hydro is great … where it can be applied. !
Need lots of precipitation , be it rain or snow, and the right terrain.
Pumped hydro is basically just a waste of energy.
I have no issue with hydroelectric power, but that is NOT what the deluded Eco-Fascists are pushing. Quite the opposite. They push to have dams removed rather than built.
And of course, there are fairly limited opportunities to employ hydroelectric power. You can’t just build it anywhere.
Just a point, not a complaint.
Hydro alters the environment.
Altering the environment also affects the local climate.
Costs, risks, benefits. Loads of trade space for selections.
Just a nit. Moving earth is not “clean” so the establishment of that hydro facility was not clean. It is noteworthy that no concrete was used for the dam itself. Nice. However, not having seen it, I can speculate with some level of confidence that concrete was used in the facility for the generators and perhaps needed buildings.
Also, I do not know what kind of damage (trees primarily) was inflicted but loss of foliage means it has a net effect of raising CO2 through loss of flora consumption.
I recommend, if we are going to make headway against the climate crisis alarmism, that we do not use their phraseology as that only gives them more credibility. Recommend the following edit:
In British Columbia, 97% of the electricity is now generated by
cleanhydro.Again, NO, WE DON’T.
AND, there is no way to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions” without INCREASING “household costs.”
Nice recognition of the hypocrisy (what else is new!), but you’re still drinking the Kool-Aid.
The “crisis” in non-existent. There is no need to squander one more penny building worse-than-useless crap that doesn’t work.
OTOH seven out of ten Berkeley residents said we don’t believe in this crap and nothing to do with less well off folks who get the same say in it ticking yes or no. I prefer the KISS my ass principle rather than tripping out down the convoluted climastrology road.