Despite all the frustrations of the past year, and the ongoing frustrations, the Build Back Better Act remains the last, best hope for federal climate policy for a decade or more. After that, things are going to get dark.
It's good to remember that if Joe Manchin weren't there a Republican would be in his place from West Virginia which voted 68.6% for Donald Trump. At least Joe will deal to some degree.
At the risk of being tarred and feathered, can we at least explore that Joe Manchin might be right in some of his criticsm of BBB? Matt Breunig over at the People's Policy Project seems to raise some good points about the short-term funding mechanisms being used for many of the policies and his argument that middle class parents would face a massive unaffordability crisis for child care under the proposal seems to have some merit. It's an ugly sausage making process that is only redeemed when whatever remains in the BBB is edible rather than rancid.
I don't grasp why climate change (to which the Democrats apparently have been consistently willing to spend $555 billion) was tied to much larger omnibus legislation. If
climate change is this important (and worth a new investment equal to the new spending in BIF), shouldn't it have its own stand-alone legislation? If climate change is this important, it should be transitioning to a non-partisan issue -- and a compelling one at that. It does feel a little too convenient to make Joe Manchin the bogeyman in all this.
I think I know the answer to this. Climate Change legislation is included as part of the BBB which is a omnibus reconcillation package that can be passed with only 50 + 1 votes (bypassing the filibuster) once per Congressional session.
If that sounds really stupid to you -- it is.
Dave's written forcefully about needing to pass Voting Rights legislation and has shown some frustration that the Democrats in the Senate are tying their own hands by failing to end the filibuster.
Again, the Senate is busted when it requires a supermajority to function -- that's not democracy, imo.
If the Federal government won't or can't lead, we must rely on state and local governments. Just last week, the New York City Council passed Int 2317[1] which bans the combustion of oil, gas, etc. in new buildings starting in 2024. While existing buildings will be permitted to continue burning fossil fuels, subject to Local Law 97 restrictions, this new law essentially announces the eventual end of fossil fuel combustion in all New York City buildings and should be recognized as a dramatic step forward in the fight against both global warming and air pollution. We need many more states and local government to pass similar laws. If New York can do this, others should be able to do the same.
If new buildings can't be used to increase load on the gas network, gas consumption will inevitably fall as buildings electrify to meet Local Law 97 emission reduction requirements. Because the costs of gas infrastructure are largely fixed, any reduction in gas sales must proportionately increase the per-unit allocation of infrastructure costs. (e.g. if consumption falls 50%, then gas delivery charges must double.) As the per-unit cost of gas delivery inevitably increases, the higher costs will tend to accelerate electrification -- a death-spiral will result and would result even if the gas commodity itself falls in price. Thus, even if a city never actually bans gas consumption in existing buildings, the economic impact of a ban on new hookups will drive gas prices to the point where electrification is recognized by all to be the cheaper alternative. In essence, the ban on new hookups is essentially an announcement that it is "game over" for gas in NYC.
OK, but taking a longer term, admittedly Pollyanna view, I’ve been wondering about what the world economy will look like in 20 - 30 years, when our existing fossil fuel saturated economy has been almost entirely replaced with cheap, widely distributed renewable energy. I’m thinking of a model more akin to community garden & small farm food production rather than agribusiness monoculture. It seems like this would be an inherently more economically stable & resilient market than our existing monopolistic commodity production + utility distribution market. Ammonia chemical fertilizer & bulk transport fuel production could be widely distributed when & wherever surplus renewable power is available. Widely distributed 24/ 7 base-load Enhanced Geothermal power production could replace existing nuclear power plants. The existing fossil fuel industry could evolve into an off-shore wind & geothermal energy industry. I wonder if & how all this will impact the geo-political landscape as well as the biological landscape. We already have the technology to do this. Maybe the political will is just going to have to come from our younger generations who are watching their homes & communities flooded or reduced to matchsticks & ashes.
That’s a great point and definitely under discussed. Renewables have the potential to unlock much more cheap energy and who knows what people can invent with that.
@Jerry, I'd love to learn more about your thoughts regarding food production. How do you do that at scale with resilency? Local ag is great -- when it's in-season and it's a good growing year.
Surplus renewable energy (from solar, wind, geothermal) will eventually / soon? begin to be “stored” in anhydrous ammonia (NH3) via electrolysis + atmospheric Nitrogen (the largest component of air). NH3 can be efficiently compressed & transported via extensive existing pipelines & ships. It’s chemical fertilizer & it's also a combustible (rocket) fuel that existing Diesel engines in ships can burn. This is really like, “a no brainer.” We don’t need to invent some “new” system to utilize surplus renewable energy or green hydrogen. It already exists; just replace the fossil fuel part of the equation with abundant, surplus renewable energy. The idea that our supply of energy is constrained is a fossil fuel industry illusion. The safest nuclear energy we have, besides the sun, is the molten core of our earth, and they’re both virtually unlimited. Wind is a “byproduct” of sun. Use ’em! Put some panels on your roof & parking lot canopies where you work.
Where I live, in Northern CA, some local fresh food is available year round, but that’s certainly not true elsewhere. In the future? Maybe local greenhouse ag with integrated enhanced geothermal heating/ cooling? Widely distributed 24/7 enhanced geothermal & offshore wind are going to both have huge growth in the US in this decade, simply because they can redeploy existing oil & gas industry expertise, resources & trained labor. Like these:
In general, the analysis has merit. I differ in several respects.
*I am doubtful that the BBBA will ever pass. Manchin has no downside that concerns him. He collects more donations each month that he stalls the BBBA. His ego is stroked by each publication putting his name in the headlines. Lobbyists are willing to smile and compliment him on his sagacity as they add to his winnings.
*If Manchin never is comfortable with the BBBA--possibly due to inflation factors, it just dies, and he goes on politicking. What changes, and the only downside to Manchin is that he has the identical problem of any double agent--no one will trust him again in either party. He might as well retire, and he might, once he finds himself isolated and no one is smiling.
* That is the bad news. About 2022 and beyond . . . It is so easy to forget that the climate is still voting every day. It voted this past week in Kentucky, and across multiple states with winds clocked at hurricane velocities in 66 locations. That is not inconsequential.
Hundreds of people, likely thousands are impacted, now and for months and years to come. They will change their behavior. Their feelings and emotions are changed, and those will continue changing through the years as the climate changes further. There is a 50-50 chance at good news for us in regard to the vote this coming November because we will experience another scorching summer, and likely a hurricane season that will be no more friendly than the last one. How long can Republicans hold out with sarcasm, minimal gestures of recognition, and no program or plan to address an issue that will very soon, be #1 on American minds?
* As for 2024 . . . Trump is his own worst enemy. He is defeating himself nearly every day. This is in part to continued mental/emotional deterioration--listen to his profanity and obsession with the 2020 election. Republicans are growing tired of this regurgitation of nonsense and worse. Yes, they will try to shut down the investigations, and may do so at their peril, as too much will have been discovered and disclosed by then. Remember, Nixon had it covered until he did not, because energetic reporting and a person willing to take chances made sure the truth reached the public.
It is likely that the Republican party will be locked in the throws of condemnation and discontented egos well before 2024. This can be stated without recognizing that a significant number of women are growing more alarmed and angry over the most likely outcome from the USCOTUS. They may not be alone if the current session has even half the impact that libertarians are hoping. It may be SCOTUS and the current session that decides the 2022 election outcomes, as people will have reason to remember it well in November. The decisions will be "conservative" in name only. John Roberts no longer has control over this court.
IMO, the worst that can happen is that journalists and reporters of all kinds grow apathetic--that young people decide it is hopeless, and retreat to drugs and sorrow rather than activism. The future is ours to write--not that of anyone else.
Thomas Jefferson stated that people usually have the kind of government they deserve. Well America, what do you choose to make of that?
One of my favorite SF authors wrote once that "Of course the game is rigged, but if you do not play, you can never win." Ethnic and minority populations have known this for 200 years or more. So, can we afford to do less than try? That is best started with a winning attitude--as Obama put it, "Yes, we can."
My take--with the wind at our backs and the temperatures rising, yes, we will.
I have been watching Manchin carefully throughout the efforts to pass BBB. My conclusion is that he will never vote for this bill. I think he dislikes the Progressive caucus intensely, and he dislikes Biden for supporting much of their agenda. I believe his strategy is to drag out the debate over BBB until there is no time left in which to pass it. I hope I'm wrong!
It's good to remember that if Joe Manchin weren't there a Republican would be in his place from West Virginia which voted 68.6% for Donald Trump. At least Joe will deal to some degree.
At the risk of being tarred and feathered, can we at least explore that Joe Manchin might be right in some of his criticsm of BBB? Matt Breunig over at the People's Policy Project seems to raise some good points about the short-term funding mechanisms being used for many of the policies and his argument that middle class parents would face a massive unaffordability crisis for child care under the proposal seems to have some merit. It's an ugly sausage making process that is only redeemed when whatever remains in the BBB is edible rather than rancid.
I don't grasp why climate change (to which the Democrats apparently have been consistently willing to spend $555 billion) was tied to much larger omnibus legislation. If
climate change is this important (and worth a new investment equal to the new spending in BIF), shouldn't it have its own stand-alone legislation? If climate change is this important, it should be transitioning to a non-partisan issue -- and a compelling one at that. It does feel a little too convenient to make Joe Manchin the bogeyman in all this.
I think I know the answer to this. Climate Change legislation is included as part of the BBB which is a omnibus reconcillation package that can be passed with only 50 + 1 votes (bypassing the filibuster) once per Congressional session.
If that sounds really stupid to you -- it is.
Dave's written forcefully about needing to pass Voting Rights legislation and has shown some frustration that the Democrats in the Senate are tying their own hands by failing to end the filibuster.
Again, the Senate is busted when it requires a supermajority to function -- that's not democracy, imo.
If the Federal government won't or can't lead, we must rely on state and local governments. Just last week, the New York City Council passed Int 2317[1] which bans the combustion of oil, gas, etc. in new buildings starting in 2024. While existing buildings will be permitted to continue burning fossil fuels, subject to Local Law 97 restrictions, this new law essentially announces the eventual end of fossil fuel combustion in all New York City buildings and should be recognized as a dramatic step forward in the fight against both global warming and air pollution. We need many more states and local government to pass similar laws. If New York can do this, others should be able to do the same.
If new buildings can't be used to increase load on the gas network, gas consumption will inevitably fall as buildings electrify to meet Local Law 97 emission reduction requirements. Because the costs of gas infrastructure are largely fixed, any reduction in gas sales must proportionately increase the per-unit allocation of infrastructure costs. (e.g. if consumption falls 50%, then gas delivery charges must double.) As the per-unit cost of gas delivery inevitably increases, the higher costs will tend to accelerate electrification -- a death-spiral will result and would result even if the gas commodity itself falls in price. Thus, even if a city never actually bans gas consumption in existing buildings, the economic impact of a ban on new hookups will drive gas prices to the point where electrification is recognized by all to be the cheaper alternative. In essence, the ban on new hookups is essentially an announcement that it is "game over" for gas in NYC.
[1] NY Int 2317-2021: https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4966519&GUID=714F1B3D-876F-4C4F-A1BC-A2849D60D55A&Options=&Search=
OK, but taking a longer term, admittedly Pollyanna view, I’ve been wondering about what the world economy will look like in 20 - 30 years, when our existing fossil fuel saturated economy has been almost entirely replaced with cheap, widely distributed renewable energy. I’m thinking of a model more akin to community garden & small farm food production rather than agribusiness monoculture. It seems like this would be an inherently more economically stable & resilient market than our existing monopolistic commodity production + utility distribution market. Ammonia chemical fertilizer & bulk transport fuel production could be widely distributed when & wherever surplus renewable power is available. Widely distributed 24/ 7 base-load Enhanced Geothermal power production could replace existing nuclear power plants. The existing fossil fuel industry could evolve into an off-shore wind & geothermal energy industry. I wonder if & how all this will impact the geo-political landscape as well as the biological landscape. We already have the technology to do this. Maybe the political will is just going to have to come from our younger generations who are watching their homes & communities flooded or reduced to matchsticks & ashes.
That’s a great point and definitely under discussed. Renewables have the potential to unlock much more cheap energy and who knows what people can invent with that.
@Jerry, I'd love to learn more about your thoughts regarding food production. How do you do that at scale with resilency? Local ag is great -- when it's in-season and it's a good growing year.
Surplus renewable energy (from solar, wind, geothermal) will eventually / soon? begin to be “stored” in anhydrous ammonia (NH3) via electrolysis + atmospheric Nitrogen (the largest component of air). NH3 can be efficiently compressed & transported via extensive existing pipelines & ships. It’s chemical fertilizer & it's also a combustible (rocket) fuel that existing Diesel engines in ships can burn. This is really like, “a no brainer.” We don’t need to invent some “new” system to utilize surplus renewable energy or green hydrogen. It already exists; just replace the fossil fuel part of the equation with abundant, surplus renewable energy. The idea that our supply of energy is constrained is a fossil fuel industry illusion. The safest nuclear energy we have, besides the sun, is the molten core of our earth, and they’re both virtually unlimited. Wind is a “byproduct” of sun. Use ’em! Put some panels on your roof & parking lot canopies where you work.
Where I live, in Northern CA, some local fresh food is available year round, but that’s certainly not true elsewhere. In the future? Maybe local greenhouse ag with integrated enhanced geothermal heating/ cooling? Widely distributed 24/7 enhanced geothermal & offshore wind are going to both have huge growth in the US in this decade, simply because they can redeploy existing oil & gas industry expertise, resources & trained labor. Like these:
https://ceraphi.com/
https://Eavor.com/
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/17/the-floating-wind-foundation-tetraspar-demonstrator-has-been-successfully-connected-to-norways-grid/
In general, the analysis has merit. I differ in several respects.
*I am doubtful that the BBBA will ever pass. Manchin has no downside that concerns him. He collects more donations each month that he stalls the BBBA. His ego is stroked by each publication putting his name in the headlines. Lobbyists are willing to smile and compliment him on his sagacity as they add to his winnings.
*If Manchin never is comfortable with the BBBA--possibly due to inflation factors, it just dies, and he goes on politicking. What changes, and the only downside to Manchin is that he has the identical problem of any double agent--no one will trust him again in either party. He might as well retire, and he might, once he finds himself isolated and no one is smiling.
* That is the bad news. About 2022 and beyond . . . It is so easy to forget that the climate is still voting every day. It voted this past week in Kentucky, and across multiple states with winds clocked at hurricane velocities in 66 locations. That is not inconsequential.
Hundreds of people, likely thousands are impacted, now and for months and years to come. They will change their behavior. Their feelings and emotions are changed, and those will continue changing through the years as the climate changes further. There is a 50-50 chance at good news for us in regard to the vote this coming November because we will experience another scorching summer, and likely a hurricane season that will be no more friendly than the last one. How long can Republicans hold out with sarcasm, minimal gestures of recognition, and no program or plan to address an issue that will very soon, be #1 on American minds?
* As for 2024 . . . Trump is his own worst enemy. He is defeating himself nearly every day. This is in part to continued mental/emotional deterioration--listen to his profanity and obsession with the 2020 election. Republicans are growing tired of this regurgitation of nonsense and worse. Yes, they will try to shut down the investigations, and may do so at their peril, as too much will have been discovered and disclosed by then. Remember, Nixon had it covered until he did not, because energetic reporting and a person willing to take chances made sure the truth reached the public.
It is likely that the Republican party will be locked in the throws of condemnation and discontented egos well before 2024. This can be stated without recognizing that a significant number of women are growing more alarmed and angry over the most likely outcome from the USCOTUS. They may not be alone if the current session has even half the impact that libertarians are hoping. It may be SCOTUS and the current session that decides the 2022 election outcomes, as people will have reason to remember it well in November. The decisions will be "conservative" in name only. John Roberts no longer has control over this court.
IMO, the worst that can happen is that journalists and reporters of all kinds grow apathetic--that young people decide it is hopeless, and retreat to drugs and sorrow rather than activism. The future is ours to write--not that of anyone else.
Thomas Jefferson stated that people usually have the kind of government they deserve. Well America, what do you choose to make of that?
One of my favorite SF authors wrote once that "Of course the game is rigged, but if you do not play, you can never win." Ethnic and minority populations have known this for 200 years or more. So, can we afford to do less than try? That is best started with a winning attitude--as Obama put it, "Yes, we can."
My take--with the wind at our backs and the temperatures rising, yes, we will.
Appreciate the perspective!
I have been watching Manchin carefully throughout the efforts to pass BBB. My conclusion is that he will never vote for this bill. I think he dislikes the Progressive caucus intensely, and he dislikes Biden for supporting much of their agenda. I believe his strategy is to drag out the debate over BBB until there is no time left in which to pass it. I hope I'm wrong!