#Gas Subsidy news

[sapphia]

USA please listen to me: the price of “teaching them a lesson” is too high. take it from New Zealand, who voted our Labour government out in the last election because they weren’t doing exactly what we wanted and got facism instead.

Trans rights are being attacked, public transport has been defunded, tax cuts issued for the wealthy, they've mass-defunded public services, cut and attacked the disability funding model, cut benefits, diverted transport funding to roads, cut all recent public transport subsidies, cancelled massive important infrastructure projects like damns and ferries (we are three ISLANDS), fast tracked mining, oil, and other massive environmentally detrimental projects and gave the power the to approve these projects singularly to three ministers who have been wined and dined by lobbyists of the companies that have put the bids in to approve them while one of the main minister infers he will not prioritise the protection of endangered species like the archeys frog over mining projects that do massive environmental harm. They have attacked indigenous rights in an attempt to negate the Treaty of Waitangi by “redefining it”; as a backup, they are also trying to remove all mentions of the treaty from legislation starting with our Child Protection laws no longer requiring social workers to consider the importance of Maori children’s culture when placing those children; when the Waitangi Tribunal who oversees indigenous matters sought to enquire about this, the Minister for Children blocked their enquiry in a breach of comity that was condemned in a ruling — too late to do anything — by our Supreme Court. They have repealed labour protections around pay and 90 day trials, reversed our smoking ban, cancelled our EV subsidy, cancelled our water infrastructure scheme that would have given Maori iwi a say in water asset management, cancelled our biggest city’s fuel tax, made our treasury and inland revenue departments less accountable, dispensed of our Productivity Commission, begun work on charter schools and military boot camps in an obvious push towards privatisation, cancelled grants for first home buyers, reduced access to emergency housing, allowed no cause evictions, cancelled our Maori health system that would have given Maori control over their own public medical care and funding, cut funding of services like budgeting advice and food banks, cancelled the consumer advocacy council, cancelled our medicine regulations, repealed free prescriptions, deferred multiple hospital builds, failed to deliver on pre-election medical promises, reversed a gun ban created in response to the mosque shootings, brought back three strikes = life sentence policy, increased minimum wage by half the recommended amount, cancelled fair pay for disabled workers, reduced wheelchair services, reversed our oil and gas exploration ban, cancelled our climate emergency fund, cut science research funding including climate research, removed limits on killing sea lions, cut funding for the climate change commission, weakened our methane targets, cancelled Significant National Areas protections, have begun reversing our ban on live exports. Much of this was passed under urgency.

It’s been six months.

[fashion-runways]

hi!! new pinned post, because the last one had gotten long again-- if you want to read previous posts, here's the first one, here's the second one. the tl;dr from those is that my dad got wrongfully imprisoned abruptly, our place was raided, the cops broke a bunch of shit and took a bunch of our things and still haven't returned them, they left all the broken things for us to spend money in repairing, we had to spend money on a lawyer, trips to visit him, new clothes, medicine and food for him in jail, etc. it was a mess, way more details in both posts. he's back home now, with an ankle monitor because technically his case isn't being investigated yet, they haven't done anything about it at all, the case hasn't moved one ounce lmao it's great, always trust the judicial system and cops!! ugh, anyway!

we found a therapist for my dad who can help her deal with all the stuff he had to deal with while in prison, all the bullying, the depression, the starving, the separation, etc. he needs to get a bunch of other medical appointments, has to get surgery, among other things, but for now things are much better on that front. that being said, he did lose his job and my old redbubble account got suspended without a warning months ago, plus argentina's economy is... really bad right now. food prices rise every day, public transportation prices went up like a 200% in a couple of weeks, salaries are low and stuck there, subsidies are gone, the local peso keeps falling, we have an absolute psychopath as a president who spends more time insulting or threatening anyone who oppose him than caring about people. it's a disaster. for updates on argentina in english, this person on twitter makes very good informative threads if you're interested.

anyway, i used to make around 30/40 dollars a month in redbubble, and that used to help adding up to the donations i got here, and it got suspended, so now i make like 1/2 dollars on teepublic monthly. so... it's a huge loss. there's a lot of things me and my mom are in charge of paying-- groceries, power and water and gas, medicine (she's diabetic, i have some sort of chronic sinusitis), our dog and cat's food and medicines, wifi, phone bills, public transportation, healthcare, my dad's new therapist... so, you know, i really need anything people can donate. even if it's just a single dollar, literally any amount helps. i love fashion so much and i love this blog, i work really hard on it even when my brain says no, and i really appreciate how much you guys love it too. i love seeing people discover new styles, new designers, new things to be inspired by. so, yeah... i'm never going anywhere, but i do need help to basically stay afloat.

as usual, my kofi link is this one: https://ko-fi.com/fashionrunways and my teepublic link is this one: https://www.teepublic.com/user/dinah-lance. thanks for being around and sharing and reblogging my posts, thanks for asking questions about fashion, and of course thanks for helping to the ones who can, and thanks to the ones who can't too, i know how that feels like, don't worry about it. love you 💖

[reasonsforhope]

"The sleeping giant of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stirred.

In the past month, an avalanche of anti-pollution rules, targeting everything from toxic drinking water to planet-heating gases in the atmosphere, have been issued by the agency. Belatedly, the sizable weight of the US federal government is being thrown at longstanding environmental crises, including the climate emergency.

On Thursday [May 18, 2023], the EPA’s month of frenzied activity was crowned by the toughest ever limits upon carbon pollution from America’s power sector, with large, existing coal and gas plants told they must slash their emissions by 90% or face being shut down.

The measure will, the EPA says, wipe out more than 600m tons of carbon emissions over the next two decades, about double what the entire UK emits each year. But even this wasn’t the biggest pollution reduction announced in recent weeks.

In April, new emissions standards for cars and trucks will eliminate an expected 9bn tons of CO2 by the mid-point of the century, while separate rules issued late last year aim to slash hydrofluorocarbons, planet-heating gases used widely in refrigeration and air conditioning, by 4.6bn tons in the same timeframe. Methane, another highly potent greenhouse gas, will be curtailed by 810m tons over the next decade in another EPA edict.

In just a few short months the EPA, diminished and demoralized under Donald Trump, has flexed its regulatory muscles to the extent that 15bn tons of greenhouse gases – equivalent to about three times the US’s carbon pollution, or nearly half of the entire world’s annual fossil fuel emissions – are set to be prevented, transforming the power basis of Americans’ cars and homes in the process...

If last year’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with its $370bn in clean energy subsidies and enticements for electric car buyers, was the carrot to reducing emissions, the EPA now appears to be bringing a hefty stick.

The IRA should help reduce US emissions by about 40% this decade but the cut needs to be deeper, up to half of 2005 levels, to give the world a chance of avoiding catastrophic heatwaves, wildfires, drought and other climate calamities. The new rules suddenly put America, after years of delay and political rancor, tantalizingly within reach of this...

“It’s clear we’ve reached a pivotal point in human history and it’s on all of us to act right now to protect our future,” said Michael Regan, the administrator of the EPA, in a speech last week at the University of Maryland. The venue was chosen in a nod to the young, climate-concerned voters Joe Biden hopes to court in next year’s presidential election, and who have been dismayed by Biden’s acquiescence to large-scale oil and gas drilling.

“Folks, this is our future we are talking about, and we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity for real climate action,” [Michael Regan, the administrator of the EPA], added. “Failure is not an option, indifference is not an option, inaction is not an option.” ...

It’s not just climate the EPA has acted upon in recent months. There are new standards for chemical plants, such as those that blight the so-called "Cancer Alley" the US, from emitting cancer-causing toxins such as benzene, ethylene oxide and vinyl chloride. New rules curbing mercury, arsenic and lead from industrial facilities have been released, as have tighter limits on emissions of soot and the first ever regulations targeting the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkylsubstances (or PFAS) in drinking water.” ...

For those inside the agency, the breakneck pace has been enervating. “It’s definitely a race against time,” said one senior EPA official, who asked not to be named. “The clock is ticking. It is a sprint through a marathon and it is exhausting.” ...

“We know the work to confront the climate crisis doesn’t stop at strong carbon pollution standards,” said Ben Jealous, the executive director of the Sierra Club.

“The continued use or expansion of fossil power plants is incompatible with a livable future. Simply put, we must not merely limit the use of fossil fuel electricity – we must end it entirely.”"

-via The Guardian (US), 5/16/23

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

By David de Bruijn

Many are shocked, wondering how this could happen in the Netherlands.

To me, their bafflement is what’s shocking.

I grew up in The Hague, where real and abundant antisemitism, from epithets in the street to physical threats to the community’s safety, was part of our daily life. As a young boy, I vividly recall how The Hague's football hooligans—viciously opposed to Ajax, Amsterdam’s “Jewish” team—walked the streets under a banner reading “We’re hunting for Jews.” (Indeed, for my entire life, football stadiums in my home country have been filled with lurid chants like “Hamas, Hamas, all the Jews on gas!” and “My dad was in the commandos, my mom was in the SS, we like to burn Jews, because Jews burn the best.”)  

In high school, second- or third-generation Moroccan kids would point and hiss “Psst, psst, that’s a Jew, that’s a Jew!” as they passed by on their bikes. 

But most impactful were the myriad security measures our community had to undertake. Seen from the front, The Hague synagogue is not recognizable, two thick green doors presenting a closed facade to the street. Behind these doors are glass doors that open only once additional permission is given. All the windows are made of bulletproof glass. A permanent police post guards the synagogue. In Amsterdam, the Jewish primary school has even more dystopian levels of protection, hidden behind several layers of metal spikes and fencing. From the outside, the view of the school is entirely closed off. (Even as I write this, I feel uncomfortably conscious of not revealing any sensitive security details.)

Self-protection was a constant—and to me, natural—part of Jewish life. Leading youngsters to a summer camp in northern Friesland meant bringing a dedicated security team and, when possible, keeping quiet the fact that it was Jewish children gathering here. 

Violent, antisemitic assaults have become increasingly regular occurrences. In May, a student at the University of Amsterdam, a young man, was assaulted by a protester in a keffiyeh, struck in the head with a wooden plank. In August, a statue of Anne Frank was defaced—for the second time—with anti-Israel graffiti. Today, walking around with a kippah in the Netherlands is an act that requires bravery.

As the situation worsened over the years—motivating some, including me, to move, others to adjust, and so many to worry—one of the most painful aspects was the way the Jewish community was gaslit. Dutch society repeatedly told its post-Holocaust Jewish remnant—and itself—that “never again” was not merely a concrete promise, but a core concept of modern Dutch morality. However, the dominant culture of the country’s immigrant communities has proven manifestly hostile to that worldview—and to Jews. 

For the North Africans living in Holland, the dominant Jewish story of the twentieth century is not Auschwitz, it is Israel, which in their distorted conception is an illegitimate, one-directional criminal enterprise directed at an innocent population. Nor—and this is crucial—is this merely an attitude about a conflict. They believe it is the crime of the twentieth century, conferring ultimate guilt on the Jewish people. “Palestine” is a phrase felt to carry the gravity of “Holocaust,” grotesquely inverting the perception of the Jewish experience.

For Holland’s Jewry, this reality has been palpable for decades. Yet nothing—no politician, no policy—has altered this reality. In the aftermath of every single violent attack—as will most likely be the case now—the political answer has been a room-temperature broth of subsidies, youth centers, dialogue forums, visits to Islamic pensioners clubs, and interfaith dialogue.

So it did not surprise me when international media outlets, like The Associated Press and The New York Times, covered this widespread attack as if it was the unfortunate, but perhaps expected, result of the Israeli fans’ conduct before and during the match, such as reportedly taunting Ajax fans with inappropriate slogans. Further, the AP wrote, the attack followed a Palestinian flag being “torn down from a building in Amsterdam on Wednesday,” and the rioters were angry because “authorities banned a pro-Palestinian demonstration near the stadium.” The Times originally pinned the attack on differences over sport and on taunts, as “violence tied to a match between Dutch and Israeli teams,” and reported that “the tensions in the hours leading up to the violence” was in part caused by “one man [being heard] saying in Hebrew, ‘The people of Israel live,’ while others shout[ed] anti-Palestinian chants using expletives.” (The Times has apparently stealth-edited its reporting numerous times since publication.)

In other words, if all you read were the initial reports, you might think that the Israelis started it, or at least had it coming.

What the reporters and media fail to understand is that this was an attack on Israeli football fans, but not one carried out by football hooligans. The Ajax team is itself Jewish friendly—fans of Amsterdam’s Ajax are affectionately (and sometimes not-so affectionately) referred to as “super Jews,” and Ajax is understood as the “Jewish team,” so it would make little sense that Ajax supporters would attack Jews or Israelis for their ethnicity—even if they are fans of an opposing team. 

No, this was straightforward: According to the accounts of witnesses and victims, it was an attack by immigrant, Muslim communities against Israelis and Jews.

[batboyblog]

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #11

March 22-29 2024

The Administration, with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in the lead responded to the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. Working with Governor Wes Moore and Mayor Brandon Scott (both Democrats) The Department of Transportation promises to clear the harbor and rebuild the bride. DoT has already released $60 million in emergency funds as a "down payment" and President Biden is expected to seek $1 billion from Congress.

Vice President Harris announced a number of actions and investments designed to improve the quality of life of the peoples of northern central America. driven by poverty, lack of economic opportunities, and out of control crime people in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras are taking great risks and trusting criminal human traffickers to try to reach the US. The Administration is working to improve conditions in the Northern Triangle so that is no longer necessary. Vice President Harris announced $1 billion dollars in new investments as part of the Central America Forward public-private partnership, since 2021 it has invested $5.2 billion in the region. Harris also announced $175 million dollars of direct aid from the US to Guatemala at a meeting with Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo.

The Department of Energy announced a $1.5 billion dollar loan to help restart the Palisades Nuclear Plant. This would mark the first time a nuclear power plant was brought back online after being decommissioned. The hope is keep the plant running till 2051, this 100% green power source is projected to prevent 111 million tons of CO2 emissions in its new life time, the same as taking 100,000 cars off the road. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer touted it as key for her state reaching its goal of 100% clean energy by 2040.

Vice President Harris launched a social media push to inform the public about the Biden-Harris Administration's SAVE Plan. The Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan was launched last year as part of President Biden's efforts to bring student loan forgiveness to millions of borrowers. Currently 7.7 million people are enrolled in SAVE, under which anyone making $16 a hour or less has a monthly payment of $0 on their student loans. 4.5 million SAVE enrollees are making $0 a month payments and another 1 million pay less than $100 a month on their loan repayment, over 150,000 people so far have had their loans totally forgiven. Republicans are suing to try to shut down the SAVE Plan

President Biden took keep steps to ensure quality healthcare this week. Biden extended the window for low-income Americans to apply for Obamacare. The original deadline of July 31st has been pushed back to November 30th. Biden also rolled back Trump era rules that allowed subsidies for "Junk Health insurance" These plans offer very little coverage and often mislead consumers into believing they have insurance when they aren't covered. These short term plans also don't have meet Obamacare standards and can refuse coverage for preexisting conditions.

The EPA announced new regulations aimed at "turbocharging" the number of electric trucks on the road. The new rules aim to have 25% of new long-haul trucks, the heaviest often diesel trucks on the road, and 40% of medium-size trucks (box trucks and landscaping vehicles) be nonpolluting by 2032, currently just 2% are. The regulation would apply to more than 100 types of vehicles including tractor-trailers, ambulances, R.V.s, garbage trucks and moving vans. The new tailpipe limits are expected to prevent about a billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2055.

the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services  announced that thanks to President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, 41 different drugs will coast those on Medicare Part B less money than it did last year.  An estimated 763,700 people on Medicare use at least one of these drugs every year. Some enrollees will save as much as $3,575 per dose.

The Department of Energy announced $6 billion for an effort to decarbonize energy-intensive industries. The investment in 33 projects across 20 states will eliminate 14 million metric tons of CO2 emissions each year when finished. Each project is meant to be highly replicable and serve as a blueprint for future private sector ventures. 

President Biden signed an Executive Order to Strengthen the Recognition of Women’s History. The Order will launch a review of all historic sites run by the National Parks Service to determine ways to better highlight the role of women, from all backgrounds, in American History.

The Senate Confirmed President Biden's nominees, Ernesto Gonzalez, and Leon Schydlower to federal judgeships in Texas. This brings the total number of federal judges appointed by President Biden to 190.

[feckcops]

The public wants to save the planet – as long as it doesn’t personally inconvenience them

“Back in July, Just Stop Oil (JSO) experienced something unusual – they found they were the ones being protested. An alternative group called Just Stop Pissing People Off attempted to block Just Stop Oil from engaging in disruptive protests and interrupted their events, saying that the climate crisis is real but that JSO is distracting and alienating people. The counter-protests tell us a great deal about Britain’s contradictory attitude to the climate crisis.

“Broadly, Brits understand that the climate crisis climate change is a major problem. 65% of us are worried about the climate crisis (versus just 28% who aren’t) while the same proportion supports the government’s aim of reducing Britain’s net carbon emissions to zero by 2050 ... Eight in 10 back more tree planting, subsidies for energy-efficient homes and higher taxes for high-carbon companies. 62% would support a requirement for all energy production to come from renewable sources. But this enthusiasm has its limits.

“When asked if they would back policies that would impose limits on what they personally can do, Brits quickly turn against them. For instance, two-thirds oppose the idea of a limit on how much meat they can buy, and a majority oppose banning petrol and diesel cars ... Even though 62% of voters back the idea of requiring all energy to be renewable, just 39% want to ban new North Sea oil fields, and a mere 32% want to prohibit the sale of gas boilers ...

“The British public is not as supportive of action on the climate crisis as many environmentalists would hope. We favour general, uncontentious ideas – net zero, tree-planting, tax rises on high-carbon companies – but when asked for our opinion on a climate policy that would directly affect us personally, we baulk. This is partly due to worries about the cost of living, but it’s also about avoiding personal inconvenience.

“Just Stop Pissing Everyone Off perfectly encapsulates the British attitude to the climate crisis: sure, it’s a problem, but not ours. As Homer Simpson once asked: ‘Can’t someone else do it?’”

[probablyasocialecologist]

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization coined CSA in 2009 to describe practices aimed at increasing farm resilience and reducing the carbon footprint of a global food system responsible for up to 37 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, however, observers say that CSA has been usurped by the Gates-led corporate alliance, with programs like Water Efficient Maize for Africa serving as green-painted Trojan horses for industry. “CSA is an agribusiness-led vision of surveillance [and] data-driven farmerless farming, [which explains why] its biggest promoters include Bayer, McDonnell, and Walmart,” said Mariam Mayet of the African Centre for Biodiversity. “From a climate perspective, it entrenches the global inequalities of a corporate food regime. There’s no system shift at all.” Octavaio Sánchez, the grizzled director of Honduras’s National Association for the Promotion of Organic Agriculture, contends that policies that promote true resilience must focus on regenerating soils through the use of organic fertilizers, crop rotation, and the preservation of native seeds able to adapt to changing conditions. These are the cornerstones of a global agro-ecology movement that has emerged from the seed and food sovereignty coalitions of the past three decades. The peasant-led agro-ecology movement—with La Via Campesina and AFSA in front—rejects the familiar refrain from agribusiness promoters that it is condemning farmers to permanent poverty and stagnation. The movement’s position is supported by both a growing literature of case studies and the development of scientific agro-ecological practices. When Gates Foundation officers were preparing to launch AGRA in 2006, researchers at the University of Essex published a study showing that agro-ecological practices increased yields by an average of nearly 80 percent across 12.6 million farms in 57 poor countries. The authors concluded that “all crops showed water use efficiency gains,” which led to “improvements in food productivity.” The UN’s High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition recommended in 2019 that governments support agro-ecological projects and redirect “subsidies and incentives that at present benefit unsustainable practices,” a judgment based on similar studies undertaken around the world.

[notwiselybuttoowell]

The election of Donald Trump as president for a second time and the Republican takeback of the U.S. Senate could undo many of the national climate policies that are most reducing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, according to climate solutions experts. When they list measures that are making the most difference, it lines up with policies Trump has said he’ll target. These rollbacks will come as more lives are being lost in heat waves, record amounts of climate pollution are accumulating in the atmosphere, the United States has been hit with what may be two of its most expensive hurricanes, and nations, which will meet in Baku, Azerbaijan next week for climate negotiations, have failed to take strong action to change these realities. [at time of posting COP29 has begun] Here are some of the measures.

The Inflation Reduction Act, the nation’s landmark climate law This law is significant because it is expected to reduce U.S. emissions by about 40% by 2030, if it unfolds as planned in the coming years. It funnels money to measures that substitute clean energy for dirty. One major way it does so is by giving credits to businesses people who build new solar and wind farms. But it’s not limited to that. It encourages developers of geothermal energy and businesses that separate the carbon dioxide from their smokestacks and bury it underground. It incentivizes the next generation of nuclear power. It gives a $7,500 tax credit to people who buy electric cars. People who buy their cars used can get a credit too, as long as they don’t earn too much to qualify. Trump, by contrast, has summed up his energy policy as “drill, baby, drill” and pledged to dismantle what he calls Democrats’ “green new scam” in favor of boosting production of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, the main causes of climate change. He vows to end subsidies for wind power that were included in the landmark 2022 climate law. If Trump does target the climate law, there are provisions that are likely safe. One is a credit for companies in advanced manufacturing, because it is perceived as “America first and pro-U.S. business,” said David Shepheard, partner and energy expert at the global consultant Baringa. Incentives for electric vehicles are likely most at risk, he added. In a call Wednesday morning, Scott Segal, head of a communications group at the law firm Bracewell LLP, which represents the energy industry, said the climate law is not likely to be repealed. Dan Jasper, a senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown, said repealing parts of the climate law could backfire because most of the investments and jobs are in Republican congressional districts.

Pollution from electric power plants The main U.S. rule aimed at reducing the climate change that comes from making electricity at power plants that burn coal is also considered vulnerable. This rule from the Environmental Protection Agency, announced in April, would force many coal-fired plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years, Shepheard said. It was projected to reduce roughly 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2047, along with tens of thousands of tons of other harmful air pollutants. Industry groups and Republican-controlled states have filed legal challenges to a host of EPA rules including this one and Trump’s victory means the Justice Department is unlikely to defend it. Under a Trump presidency, it is unlikely to survive, Shepheard said. The United States has been reducing carbon dioxide emissions primarily by replacing coal-fired power plants with clean, renewable power, said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who chairs the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tracks countries’ carbon dioxide emissions. “I hope that we don’t lose sight of the benefits of clean energy,” he said. “It’s not just about the climate. It’s about our lives and our health.”

Limiting leaks from damaging methane, or natural gas The Biden administration was under pressure to reduce one of the main pollutants contributing to drought, heat waves, flooding and stronger hurricanes — methane or natural gas. It leaks out of oil and gas equipment, sometimes deliberately when companies consider it too expensive to transport. The Biden administration issued the first national rules on this. Industry groups and Republican-leaning states have challenged the rule in court. They say the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority and set unattainable standards. The EPA said the rules are squarely within its legal responsibilities and would protect the public.

Fuel-efficient vehicles The Environmental Protection Agency has issued its strongest rules on tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks under the Biden administration. While it is unclear who will head the EPA under Trump, the agency is considered likely to begin a lengthy process to repeal and replace a host of standards including the one on tailpipe emissions, which Trump falsely calls an electric vehicle “mandate.″ Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental laws as president and that number is likely to grow in a second term. Trump has said EV manufacturing will destroy jobs in the auto industry and has falsely claimed that battery-powered cars don’t work in cold weather and aren’t able to travel long distances. Trump softened his rhetoric in recent months after Tesla CEO Elon Musk endorsed him and campaigned heavily for his election. Even so, industry officials expect Trump to try to slow a shift to electric cars.

Drilling in Alaska refuge Trump is almost certain to reinstate oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, continuing a partisan battle that has persisted for decades. Biden and other Democratic presidents have blocked drilling in the sprawling refuge, which is home to polar bears, caribou and other wildlife. Trump opened the area to drilling in a 2017 tax cut law enacted by congressional Republicans. No drilling has occurred in the refuge, although the U.S. Bureau of Land Management on Wednesday proposed a lease sale by the end of December that could lead to oil drilling. The sale is required under the 2017 law.

Transition to cleaner energy, transport will continue Trump, who has cast climate change as a “hoax,” has said he will also eliminate regulations by the Biden administration to increase the energy efficiency of lightbulbs, stoves, dishwashers and shower heads. Dan Jasper, a senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown said climate action will continue to move forward at the state and local level. Zara Ahmed, who leads policy analysis and science strategy at Carbon Direct, agreed. While there may be an abdication of leadership at the federal level on climate, she’s optimistic that states including California will continue to lead. Clean Air Task Force Executive Director Armond Cohen said on Wednesday that states, cities, utilities and businesses that have committed to net zero emissions will keep working toward those goals, driving record installations of wind and solar energy. Governors of both parties are also interested in ramping up nuclear energy as a carbon-free source of electricity, Cohen said. Trump has said he, too, is interested in developing the next generation of nuclear reactors that are smaller than traditional reactors. Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator who was Biden’s first national climate adviser, said Trump will be unable to stop clean energy such as wind, solar and geothermal power. “No matter what Trump may say, the shift to clean energy is unstoppable and our country is not turning back,″ McCarthy said. Advocates for clean energy are bipartisan, well-organized “and fully prepared to deliver climate solutions, boost local economies, and drive climate ambition,′ she said.

[simply-ivanka]

What Kamala Harris Believes

The Vice President’s political record reveals the views of a California progressive.

Wall Street Journal

Democrats are rapidly unifying behind Kamala Harris as their party nominee, yet the Vice President remains relatively unknown to most Americans. That means it’s important to look at her record to see what she believes.

As VP she’s closely identified with the Biden agenda, for better or worse, and she embraced that record in remarks on Monday. She said President Biden’s first term has “surpassed the legacy” of most Presidents who have served two.

So mark her down as endorsing the spending blowouts that caused inflation, the Green New Deal, entitlement expansions and student loan forgiveness. Until she says otherwise, we should also assume she’s in favor of Mr. Biden’s $5 trillion tax increase in 2025.

The Vice President’s four years as a Senator from California are another window on her worldview. She sponsored a bill to create a $6,000 guaranteed income for families making up to $100,000. Another Harris proposal: A refundable tax credit that would effectively cap rents and utility payments at 30% of income. Liberal economists panned the subsidy because it would drive up rents.

She co-sponsored legislation with Bernie Sanders that would pay tuition at four-year public colleges for students from families making up to $125,000. This is more honest than the Administration’s back-end student loan cancellation. But it would cost $700 billion over a decade and encourage colleges to increase tuition.

Another Bernie mind-meld: Single-payer healthcare. Ms. Harris co-sponsored his Medicare for All legislation paid for by higher income taxes. She tweaked Bernie’s plan when running for President in 2019 by extending the phase-in to 10 years from four and exempting households making less than $100,000 from the “income-based premium.” But it would still put government in charge of all American healthcare over time.

As a San Francisco Democrat, Ms. Harris shares the state’s hostility to fossil fuels. She used her power as California Attorney General to launch an investigation into Exxon Mobil over its carbon emissions. In 2019 she endorsed a nationwide ban on oil and gas fracking, which would cost tens of thousands of jobs and cause power outages like those that often occur in her home state. Expect this to be a GOP talking point in Pennsylvania.

One question to ask is whether the Vice President wants to restructure the Supreme Court. She said in 2019 she was “open” to adding more Justices, but that idea doesn’t poll well. Does she agree with Mr. Biden’s mooted plan to endorse “reforms” to the High Court that would make the Justices subject to Congressional supervision?

Mr. Biden famously put Ms. Harris in charge of border policy, and we know how that has turned out. Rather than push for border policy changes, her first instinct was to blame the rush of migrants on “root causes” in developing countries, including corruption, violence, poverty and “lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience.”

Climate change makes the U.S. border a sieve? Apparently so. “In Honduras, in the wake of hurricanes, we must deliver food, shelter, water and sanitation to the people,” Ms. Harris declared. “And in Guatemala, as farmers endure continuous droughts, we must work with them to plant drought-resistant crops.” These “root causes” take decades to address, and in the meantime she had nothing to say about actual border security.

Ms. Harris’s foreign policy views aren’t well known, or perhaps even well formed, apart from promoting Mr. Biden’s policies. While she has backed the Administration’s military assistance to Ukraine, she has equivocated about support for Israel. In March she chastised Israel for not doing enough to ease a “humanitarian catastrophe.” Leaks to the press say officials at the National Security Council toned down her speech’s criticism of Israel.

She lambasted the Trump Administration for killing Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani, claiming it could lead to bigger war in the Mideast. The killing chastened Iran’s rulers instead, at least until the Biden Administration began to ease sanctions and tried to repeat the 2015 nuclear deal.

It will be especially important for the press to ask Ms. Harris about her national security views. If her handlers control her as much as White House advisers have Mr. Biden, we’ll know they’re afraid that the Vice President might not be able to handle the scrutiny.

A fair conclusion from all of this is that Ms. Harris is a standard California progressive on most issues, often to the left of Mr. Biden. Perhaps as she reintroduces herself to the public in the coming weeks, she will modify some of those views. She would be wise to do so if she wants to win.

Given the rush by Democrats to anoint Ms. Harris as their nominee, the press has a particular obligation to tell the public about who she is and what she really thinks. Does she believe California is a model for the country?

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Yale Environment 360:

The November 5 election was the worst-case outcome for climate regulation. The return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office and Republican control of the Senate and the House of Representatives will halt federal progress and lead to a reversal of most of the climate initiatives undertaken by the Biden administration.

Such a rollback occurred after Trump first won election in 2016, but this time the stakes are even higher. Trump has promised to halt spending under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate law that dramatically increased federal support for clean energy technology and electric vehicles. And the president-elect has pledged to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, reverse a key regulation aimed at reducing emissions from power plants, and roll back a host of key rules aimed at curbing climate change and air and water pollution.

Signs of light remain, however. Rapid advances in the technology and economics of clean energy have created a momentum that can be slowed but not stopped, with the cost of solar dropping globally by more than half since 2016. States and cities still retain much ability to reduce emissions and to prepare for the worsening physical impacts of climate change. But major progress will be in jeopardy because of the administration’s actions on a host of fronts.

Renewable Energy

A clean energy economy requires the construction of a massive number of new wind and solar farms and the associated electricity storage and transmission infrastructure. Such facilities are needed to replace all the old coal plants and most of the natural gas plants, and to provide the added power needed for electrifying vehicles, building heating systems, powering energy-intensive industries, meeting the demand for data centers for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, and other new loads. In 2022 Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is providing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks for clean energy. The IRA, coupled with rapidly dropping costs, has spurred a large upsurge in new projects.

The IRA passed Congress without a single Republican vote, and Trump has said he will ask Congress to repeal it. However, most of the IRA money for clean energy is going to districts represented by Republican members of Congress, many of whom oppose full repeal. Thus, Trump’s ability to eliminate the relevant parts of the IRA is in question, though a cap on the multiplicity of tax credits seems likely. However, the Internal Revenue Service under Trump could make it difficult to utilize the tax credits by issuing very restrictive interpretations of the credits or refusing to release the necessary forms.

The fate of the IRA will be an issue next year with the scheduled expiration of parts of the 2017 Trump tax cuts bill. Trump will presumably want to extend those tax cuts. Congress will be looking for ways to pay for this. Slashing IRA subsidies could be part of that.

Another expected Trump target is the fee imposed by the IRA on methane leakage from oil and gas production. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and this fee is the first nationwide carbon tax in the U.S. The industry is pressing for its repeal, and Trump will clearly be sympathetic.

Wind and solar projects located on federal land or waters (which includes all offshore wind) require federal approval. Trump has often expressed antagonism to wind, and federal approvals for new wind projects are likely to stall. Wind and solar projects on private or state-owned land generally do not require federal approvals.

Motor Vehicles

A critical area where the new Trump administration is expected to slash environmental rules is motor vehicles, which are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Federal agencies set emission and fuel economy standards for motor vehicles. Under both Presidents Obama and Biden (with a halt by President Trump in between) both these standards were strengthened, leading to progressively cleaner cars. Regulations adopted late in the Biden administration are even stronger.

Federal law allows California to set its own even more stringent standards if EPA grants a waiver, and if it does, other states may adopt those. States that have traditionally followed the California standards amount to around 40 percent of the market for passenger cars. California has adopted rules that would phase out internal combustion engine cars and require that all new cars starting with the 2035 model year be zero-emission, and EPA has granted the needed waiver. Eight states have adopted plans requiring all new cars to be zero-emission by 2035, but this depends on the California waiver; without it, state laws inconsistent with the federal standards are preempted.

Both the stronger fuel economy standards and the California waiver are being challenged in court. Trump is likely to direct the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to freeze or weaken the standards and to revoke the California waiver, as he did during his first term. These actions, too, will face court challenges.

The automakers are, of course, free to make as many electric cars as they want and are already retooling to increase their output. But whether they are compelled to do so depends on the outcome of these court cases. And importantly, the subsidies for electric vehicles in the Inflation Reduction Act are also at risk, as Trump has said he would consider ending them.

Coal-Fired Power Plants

No one is building new coal-fired power plants in the U.S. any more, but there are about 225 still operating, and they are now the second largest source of greenhouse gases and also major emitters of unhealthy air pollutants such as fine particulates. Democratic administrations have for decades tried to accelerate their cleanup and closure, but the courts have frequently thrown up roadblocks. In 2024 the EPA issued a new rule that requires the eventual closure of these plants unless they install carbon capture and sequestration, a very expensive proposition. This too is being challenged in court and is very likely to be repealed by Trump.

Fossil Fuels

Trump has adopted the “drill baby drill” mantra. He has also promised to cut energy prices in half, mostly by greatly increasing production of oil and natural gas. However, current production levels under President Biden are the highest ever seen in the U.S., and higher than any other country in the world. This is mostly due to fracking, which has become the largest source of primary energy in the U.S. (47 percent in 2023). However, fracking is economical only if the prices of oil and natural gas are high enough; a drastic decline in prices will drive down production. Trump will probably open more federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and relax environmental restrictions on them. But whether this will dramatically increase production is open to question.

Last January, Biden announced a temporary pause in the approval of new liquified natural gas export terminals. Trump will end that pause and try to expedite the approvals of these terminals and the associated pipelines.

International Agreements

Under Obama, the U.S. joined the Paris climate agreement; Trump withdrew; Biden rejoined; and Trump will no doubt pull out again. He might also go further and remove the U.S. from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the Senate ratified in 1992 and is the foundation for the Paris Agreement. Any of this would deny the U.S. a seat at the global climate bargaining tables and cede climate leadership to China.

For more than 30 years at the annual U.N. climate conference, the developing countries have been demanding “loss and damage” — compensation for the injuries they have suffered as a result of climate change. The U.S. has long been a target of these demands. With Trump in the White House and a Republican Congress, any hope of the U.S. providing funds for this purpose appears gone.

State and Local Action

While states cannot impose their own standards on motor vehicles without federal approval, in most other respects states are free to set stronger environmental standards than Washington. States can also adopt energy efficiency standards for appliances that are not subject to federal standards.

States and cities can use their procurement power to require low-emissions production of the cement, steel, and other commodities they buy and can demand clean motor vehicles and appliances. They purchase all of these in large quantities, which impacts manufacturers.

Blue states and cities, together with environmental groups, can be expected to vigorously litigate against Trump’s actions on climate change, as they did during Trump’s first term. The next four years will be rocky, indeed, and will keep lawyers on both sides very busy.

[mightyflamethrower]

California has become a test case of the suicide of the West. Never before has such a state, so rich in natural resources and endowed with such a bountiful human inheritance, self-destructed so rapidly.

How and why did California so utterly consume its unmatched natural and ancestral inheritance and end up as a warning to Western civilization of what might be in store for anyone who followed its nihilism?

The symptoms of the state’s suicide are indisputable.

Governor Gavin Newsom enjoyed a recent $98 billion budget surplus—gifted from multibillion-dollar federal COVID-19 subsidies, the highest income and gas taxes in the nation, and among the country’s steepest sales and property taxes.

Yet in a year, he turned it into a growing $45 billion budget deficit.

At a time of an over-regulated, overtaxed, and sputtering economy, Newsom spent lavishly on new entitlements, illegal immigrants, and untried and inefficient green projects.

Newsom was endowed with two of the wettest years in recent California history. Yet he and radical environmentalists squandered the water bounty—as snowmelts and runoff long designated for agricultural irrigation were drained from aqueducts and reservoirs to flow out to sea.

Newsom transferred millions of dollars designated by a voter referendum to build dams and aqueducts for water storage and instead blew up four historic dams on the Klamath River. For decades, these now-destroyed scenic lakes provided clean, green hydroelectric power, irrigation storage, flood control, and recreation.

California hosts one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients. Over a fifth of the population lives below the property line. Nearly half the nation’s homeless sleep on the streets of its major cities.

The state’s downtowns are dirty, dangerous, and increasingly abandoned by businesses—most recently Google—that cannot rely on a defunded and shackled police.

Newsom’s California has spent billions on homeless relief and subsidizing millions of new illegal migrant arrivals across the state’s porous southern border.

The result was predictably even more homeless and more illegal immigrants, all front-loaded onto the state’s already overtaxed and broken healthcare, housing, and welfare entitlements.

Newsome raised the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $22 an hour. The result was wage inflation rippling out to all service areas, unaffordable food for the poor, and massive shut-downs and bankruptcies of fast food outlets.

Twenty-seven percent of Californians were born outside of the United States. It is a minority-majority state. Yet California has long dropped unifying civic education, while the bankrupt state funds exploratory commissions to consider divisive racial reparations.

California’s universities are hotbeds of ethnic, religious, and racial chauvinism and infighting. State officials, however, did little as its campuses were plagued for months by rampant and violent anti-Semitism.

Almost nightly, the nation watches mass smash-and-grab attacks on California retail stores. Carjackers and thieves own the night. They are rarely caught, even more rarely arrested—and almost never convicted.

Currently, Newsom is fighting in the courts to stop the people’s constitutional right to place on the ballot initiatives to restore penalties for violent crime and theft.

Gas prices are the highest in the continental United States, given green mandate formulas and the nation’s highest, and still raising, gasoline taxes—and are scheduled to go well over $6 a gallon.

Yet its ossified roads and highways are among the nation’s most dangerous, as vast sums of transportation funding were siphoned off to the multibillion-dollar high-speed rail boondoggle.

The state imports almost all the costly vitals of modern life, mostly because it prohibits using California’s own vast petroleum, natural gas, timber, and mineral resources.

As California implodes, its embarrassed government turns to the irrelevant, if not ludicrous.

It now outlaws natural gas stoves in new homes. It is adding new income-based surcharges for those who dutifully pay their power bills—to help subsidize the 2.5 million Californians who simply default on their energy bill with impunity.

What happened to the once-beautiful California paradise?

Millions of productive but frustrated, overtaxed, and underserved middle-class residents have fled to low-crime, low-tax, and well-served red states in disgust

In turn, millions of illegal migrants have swarmed the state, given its sanctuary-city policies, refusal to enforce the law, and generous entitlements.

Meanwhile, a tiny coastal elite, empowered by $9 trillion in Silicon Valley market capitalization, fiddled while their state burned.

California became a medieval society of plutocratic barons, subsidized peasants, and a shrinking and fleeing middle class. It is now home to a few rich estates, subsidized apartments, and unaffordable middle-class houses.

California suffers from poorly ranked public schools—but brags about its prestigious private academies. Its highways are lethal—but it hosts the most private jets in the nation.

The fantasies of a protected enclave of Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, and the masters of the Silicon Valley universe have become the abject nightmares of everyone else.

In sum, a privileged Bay Area elite inherited a California paradise and turned it into purgatory.

[mariacallous]

Over the past few years, the United States has become the go-to location for companies seeking to suck carbon dioxide out of the sky. There are a handful of demonstration-scale direct air capture (DAC) plants dotted across the globe, but the facilities planned in Louisiana and Texas are of a different scale: They aim to capture millions of tons of carbon dioxide each year, rather than the dozens of tons or less captured by existing systems.

The US has a few things going for it when it comes to DAC: It has the right kind of geological formations that can store carbon dioxide pumped underground, it has an oil and gas industry that knows a lot about drilling into that ground, and it has federal grants and subsidies for the carbon capture industry. The projects in Louisiana and Texas are supported by up to $1.05 billion in Department of Energy (DOE) funds, and the projects will be eligible for tax credits of up to $180 per ton of carbon dioxide stored.

“It’s quite clear that the United States is the leader in policy to support this nascent sector,” says Jason Hochman, executive director at the Direct Air Capture Coalition, a nonprofit that works to accelerate the deployment of DAC technology. “At the same time, it’s nowhere near where it needs to be to get on track—to the scale we need to get to net zero.”

But support for carbon storage is far from guaranteed. Project 2025, the nearly thousand-page Heritage Foundation policy blueprint for a second Trump presidency, would dramatically roll back policies that support the DAC industry and carbon capture more generally. The Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership document proposes eliminating the DOE’s Office for Clean Energy Demonstrations, which provides funds for DAC facilities and carbon capture projects, and also calls out the 45Q tax credit that supports DAC as well as carbon capture, usage, and storage—filtering and storing carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and heavy industry. (The Heritage Foundation did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.)

Sucking carbon out of the sky is not uncontroversial—not least because of the oil and gas industry’s involvement in the sector—but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report says that using carbon dioxide removal to balance emissions from sectors like aviation and agriculture is unavoidable if we want to achieve net zero. Carbon dioxide removal can mean planting trees and sequestering carbon in soil, but a technology like DAC is attractive because it’s easy to measure how much carbon you’re sequestering, and stored carbon should stay locked up for a very long time, which isn’t necessarily the case with forests and soil.

As DAC technology is so new, and the facilities constructed so far are small, it’s still extremely expensive to remove carbon from the atmosphere this way. Estimated costs for extracting carbon go from hundreds of dollars per ton to in excess of $1,000—although Google just announced it is paying $100 for DAC removal credits for carbon that will be sequestered in the early 2030s. On top of that, large-scale DAC plants are likely to cost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to build.

That’s why government support like the DOE Regional DAC Hubs program is so important, says Jack Andreasen at Breakthrough Energy, the Bill Gates–founded initiative to accelerate technology to reach net zero. “This gets projects built,” he says. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law signed in 2021 set aside $3.5 billion in federal funds to help the construction of four regional DAC hubs. This is the money that is going into the Louisiana and Texas projects.

Climeworks is one of the companies working on the Louisiana DAC hub, which is eligible for up to $550 million in federal funding. Eventually, the facility aims to capture more than 1 million tons of carbon dioxide each year and store it underground. “If you do want to build an industry, you cannot do it with demo projects. You have to put your money where your mouth is and say there are certain projects that should be eligible for a larger share of funding,” says Daniel Nathan, chief project development officer at Climeworks. When the hub starts sequestering carbon, it will be eligible to claim up to $180 for each ton of carbon stored, under tax credit 45Q, which was extended under the Inflation Reduction Act.

These tax credits are important because they provide long-term support for companies actually sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. “What you have is a guaranteed revenue stream of $180 per ton for a minimum of 12 years,” says Andreasen. It’s particularly critical given that the costs of capturing and storing a ton of carbon dioxide are likely to exceed the market rate of carbon credits for a long time. Other forms of carbon removal, notably planting forests, are much cheaper than DAC, and removal offsets also compete with offsets for renewable energy, which avoid emitting new emissions. Without a top-up from the government, it’s unlikely that a market for DAC sequestration would be able to sustain itself.

Most of the DAC industry experts WIRED spoke to thought there was little political appetite to reverse the 45Q tax credit—not least because it also allows firms to claim a tax credit for using carbon dioxide to physically extract more oil from existing reservoirs. They were more worried, however, about the prospect that existing DOE funds set aside for DAC and other projects might not be allocated under a future administration.

“I do think a slowing down of the DOE is a possibility,” says Andreasen. “That just means the money takes longer to get out, and that is not great.” Katie Lebling at the World Resources Institute, a sustainability nonprofit, agrees, saying there is a risk that unallocated funds could be slowed down and stalled if a new administration looked less favorably on carbon removal.

The Heritage Foundation doesn’t just doubt the carbon removal industry—it is openly skeptical about climate change, writing in one report that observed warming could only “theoretically” be due to the burning of fossil fuels, and that “this claim cannot be demonstrated through science.” In its Project 2025 plan, the foundation says the “government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be subsidizing the private sector to bring resources to market.”

But without government support, the private sector would never develop technologies like DAC, says Jonas Meckling, an associate professor at UC Berkeley and climate fellow at Harvard Business School. The same was true of the solar industry, Meckling says. “You cannot start an industry with a societal good in mind unless you get governments to take an active role,” says Nathan of Climeworks.

While there are some question marks over the future of DOE grants for DAC, the industry appeals to legislators on both sides of the aisle. The Texas DAC hub is being built by 1PointFive, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, and both DOE projects are located in firmly red states. When it was announced that DOE DAC hubs funding would be spent in Louisiana, Senator Bill Cassidy said: “Carbon capture opens a new era of energy and manufacturing dominance for Louisiana. It is the future of job creation and economic development for our state.”

In the long run, Nathan says, the aim is for DAC to be viable on its own economic terms. In time, he says, that will mean regulation that requires industries to pay for carbon removal—a stricter version of emissions-trading schemes that already exist in places like California and the European Union. Eventually, that should lead to a place where the direct air industry no longer requires government support to remove carbon from the atmosphere at scale. “I’m looking at the fundamentals, and those aren’t driven by who’s in office,” Nathan says.

[gatheringbones]

[“Our institutions have socialized us to scarcity, creating artificial resource shortages and then normalizing them. For example, because the residents of affluent neighborhoods have been so successful at blocking the construction of new housing in their communities, developers have turned their sights on down-market neighborhoods, where they also meet resistance, often from struggling renters fretting about gentrification.

As this dynamic has repeated itself in cities across America, the debate about addressing the affordable housing crisis and fostering inclusive communities has turned into a debate about gentrification, one pitting low-income families who have stable housing against low-income families who need it. But notice how contrived and weird this is, how our full range of action has been limited by rich homeowners essentially redlining their blocks. Or consider how a scarcity mindset frames so much of our politics, crippling our imaginations and stunting our moral ambitions. How many times have we all heard legislators and academics and pundits begin their remarks with the phrase “In a world of scarce resources…,” as if that state of affairs were self-evident, obvious, as unassailable as natural law, instead of something we’ve fashioned?

The United States lags far behind other advanced countries when it comes to funding public services. In 2019, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and several other Western democracies each raised tax revenues equal to at least 38 percent of their GDPs, while the United States’ total revenues languished at 25 percent. Instead of catching up to our peer nations, we have lavished government benefits on affluent families and refused to prosecute tax dodgers. And then we cry poor when someone proposes a way to spur economic mobility or end hunger? Significantly expanding our collective investment in fighting poverty will cost something. How much it will cost is not a trivial affair. But I would have more patience for concerns about the cost of ending family homelessness if we weren’t spending billions of dollars each year on homeowner tax subsidies, just as I could better stomach concerns over the purported financial burden of establishing a living wage if our largest corporations weren’t pocketing billions each year through tax avoidance. The scarcity mindset shrinks and contorts poverty abolitionism, forcing it to operate within fictitious fiscal constraints. It also pits economic justice against climate justice. When lawmakers have tried to curb pollution and traffic gridlock through congestion pricing, for instance, charging vehicles a fee if they enter busy urban neighborhoods during peak hours, critics have shot down the proposal by claiming it would hit low-income workers in transit deserts the hardest. In many cases, this is true. But it doesn’t have to be. We allow millions to live paycheck to paycheck, then leverage their predicament to justify inaction on other social and environmental issues. Politicians and pundits inform us, using their grown-up voice, that unfortunately we can’t tax gas-guzzling vehicles or transition to green energy or increase the cost of beef because it would harm poor and working-class families. My point isn’t that these tradeoffs aren’t pertinent but that they aren’t inescapable. They are by-products of fabricated scarcity.”]

matthew desmond, from poverty: by america, 2023

[reasonsforhope]

"India’s announcement that it aims to reach net zero emissions by 2070 and to meet fifty percent of its electricity requirements from renewable energy sources by 2030 is a hugely significant moment for the global fight against climate change. India is pioneering a new model of economic development that could avoid the carbon-intensive approaches that many countries have pursued in the past – and provide a blueprint for other developing economies.

The scale of transformation in India is stunning. Its economic growth has been among the highest in the world over the past two decades, lifting of millions of people out of poverty. Every year, India adds a city the size of London to its urban population, involving vast construction of new buildings, factories and transportation networks. Coal and oil have so far served as bedrocks of India’s industrial growth and modernisation, giving a rising number of Indian people access to modern energy services. This includes adding new electricity connections for 50 million citizens each year over the past decade. 

The rapid growth in fossil energy consumption has also meant India’s annual CO2 emissions have risen to become the third highest in the world. However, India’s CO2 emissions per person put it near the bottom of the world’s emitters, and they are lower still if you consider historical emissions per person. The same is true of energy consumption: the average household in India consumes a tenth as much electricity as the average household in the United States.  

India’s sheer size and its huge scope for growth means that its energy demand is set to grow by more than that of any other country in the coming decades. In a pathway to net zero emissions by 2070, we estimate that most of the growth in energy demand this decade would already have to be met with low-carbon energy sources. It therefore makes sense that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced more ambitious targets for 2030, including installing 500 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity, reducing the emissions intensity of its economy by 45%, and reducing a billion tonnes of CO2. 

These targets are formidable, but the good news is that the clean energy transition in India is already well underway. It has overachieved its commitment made at COP 21- Paris Summit [a.k.a. 2015, at the same conference that produced the Paris Agreement] by already meeting 40% of its power capacity from non-fossil fuels- almost nine years ahead of its commitment, and the share of solar and wind in India’s energy mix have grown phenomenally. Owing to technological developments, steady policy support, and a vibrant private sector, solar power plants are cheaper to build than coal ones. Renewable electricity is growing at a faster rate in India than any other major economy, with new capacity additions on track to double by 2026...

Subsidies for petrol and diesel were removed in the early 2010s, and subsidies for electric vehicles were introduced in 2019. India’s robust energy efficiency programme has been successful in reducing energy use and emissions from buildings, transport and major industries. Government efforts to provide millions of households with fuel gas for cooking and heating are enabling a steady transition away from the use of traditional biomass such as burning wood. India is also laying the groundwork to scale up important emerging technologies such as hydrogen, battery storage, and low-carbon steel, cement and fertilisers..."

-via IEA (International Energy Agency), January 10, 2022

Note: And since that's a little old, here's an update to show that progress is still going strong:

-via Economic Times: EnergyWorld, March 10, 2023