• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Texas Republicans Fear the Green New Deal

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,136
Reaction score
82,407
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

2/21/21
Since the power went out in Texas, the state’s most prominent Republicans have tried to pin the blame for the crisis on, of all things, a sweeping progressive mobilization to fight poverty, inequality and climate change. “This shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal,” Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said Wednesday on Fox News. The claims are outlandish. The Green New Deal is, among other things, a plan to tightly regulate and upgrade the energy system so the United States gets 100 percent of its electricity from renewables in a decade. Texas, of course, still gets the majority of its energy from gas and coal; much of that industry’s poorly insulated infrastructure froze up last week when it collided with wild weather that prompted a huge surge in demand. (Despite the claims of many conservatives, renewable energy was not to blame.) But weather alone did not cause this crisis. Texans are living through the collapse of a 40-year experiment in free-market fundamentalism, one that has also stood in the way of effective climate action. Fortunately, there’s a way out — and that’s precisely what Republican politicians in the state most fear. A fateful series of decisions were made in the late-’90s, when the now-defunct, scandal-plagued energy company Enron led a successful push to radically deregulate Texas’s electricity sector.

Unsurprisingly, these companies prioritized short-term profit over costly investments to maintain the grid and build in redundancies for extreme weather. Today, Texans are at the mercy of regulation-allergic politicians who failed to require that energy companies plan for shocks or weatherize their infrastructure. Put bluntly, Texas is about as far from having a Green New Deal as any place on earth. So why have Republicans seized it as their scapegoat of choice? Blame right-wing panic. For decades, the Republicans have met every disaster with a credo I have described as “the shock doctrine.” Large-scale shocks become ideal moments to smuggle in unpopular free-market policies that tend to enrich elites at everyone else’s expense. Crucially, the shock doctrine is not about solving underlying drivers of crises: It’s about exploiting those crises to ram through your wish list. This is especially true now, as so many Texans suffer under the overlapping crises of unemployment, racial injustice, crumbling public services and extreme weather. All that Texas’s Republicans have to offer is continued oil and gas dependence — driving more climate disruption — alongside more privatizations and cuts to public services to pay for their state’s mess, which we can expect them to push in the weeks and months ahead.


One thing is certain, the Texas state GOP will continue to bend to the will of the Texas energy industry at the expense of correcting this decades-long deregulation mess, and of combatting climate change.
 
Typical NYT spin of the facts. Texas is the #1 state for alternate energy generation, excluding hydroelectric.

I do not understand why the hostility to natural gas. It's non polluting and we have depth of resources.

J
 
So long as energy companies in Texas can charge people 5000-17000 dollars during emergencies, they should be OK.
 
Typical NYT spin of the facts. Texas is the #1 state for alternate energy generation, excluding hydroelectric.

I do not understand why the hostility to natural gas. It's non polluting and we have depth of resources.

J
It's much cleaner than coal butburning anything produces CO2.

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

Coal (anthracite)228.6
Coal (bituminous)205.7
Coal (lignite)215.4
Coal (subbituminous)214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol)157.2
Propane139.0
Natural gas117.0


 
It's much cleaner than coal butburning anything produces CO2.

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

Coal (anthracite)228.6
Coal (bituminous)205.7
Coal (lignite)215.4
Coal (subbituminous)214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol)157.2
Propane139.0
Natural gas117.0


Ah. You mean because of the climate change cult.

That makes sense, though by your chart it's a significant improvement.
 
Ah. You mean because of the climate change cult.

That makes sense, though by your chart it's a significant improvement.
If you gotta burn anything natural gas is the way to go. It's cleaner than just about anything. Hydrogen, maybe, but producing and storing hydrogen is still an involved process.
 
If you gotta burn anything natural gas is the way to go. It's cleaner than just about anything. Hydrogen, maybe, but producing and storing hydrogen is still an involved process.
Exactly. At this time, and for the foreseeable future, methane is the go to fuel.

Objecting to fuel on the basis is of CO2 production is unscientific, regardless of the claims to the contrary. Naturally, NYT embraces the concept.
 
Exactly. At this time, and for the foreseeable future, methane is the go to fuel.

Objecting to fuel on the basis is of CO2 production is unscientific, regardless of the claims to the contrary. Naturally, NYT embraces the concept.
No it's not. Unscientific, I mean. Objecting is fine but rejecting is premature.
In a perfect world we wouldn't have to burn fossil fuels to make electricity but the world isn't perfect. In a perfect world nuclear power will be safer, wind power more reliable, solar power more efficient, but for now we still have to burn something. In lots of places anyway, here where I live power is hydro which is basically solar but most people don't live among mountains.
Hell, maybe when the world is perfect something will have replaced electricity. In the meantime, if you gotta burn something natural gas is the way to go. In the meantime. But that doesn't mean research into better alternatives can stop.
 
No it's not. Unscientific, I mean. Objecting is fine but rejecting is premature.
In a perfect world we wouldn't have to burn fossil fuels to make electricity but the world isn't perfect. In a perfect world nuclear power will be safer, wind power more reliable, solar power more efficient, but for now we still have to burn something. In lots of places anyway, here where I live power is hydro which is basically solar but most people don't live among mountains.
Hell, maybe when the world is perfect something will have replaced electricity. In the meantime, if you gotta burn something natural gas is the way to go. In the meantime. But that doesn't mean research into better alternatives can stop.
AGW is dicey science in the first place. There are too many unknowns and variables which are assumed constant to produce a workable model. After 50 years the science still formative.

When you focus only on CO2 emissions, you leave the science and get into horror fiction.
 
I would just say that all people should stand and take notice of who presses for a cleaner environment and who pushes back on any regulation that fights pollution. That alone should tell you all you need to know when it comes to politics and filth.

Being born and raised in Texas, I can say that, for the most part, the fossil fuel (oil) industry has put food on the table for many generations of Texans, (like me) and their disdain for the industry and it's associated pollution, is not like it is in other parts of the country. It is far more acceptable in that neck of the woods.

Generally speaking, have you ever taken a drive through the great state of Texas? It is absolutely beautiful in most parts. But, then again, a LOT of Texans do not share the same "pride" in their property as I have observed in other parts of the country. It is not uncommon at all, (in fact it is VERY common) to drive past someone's home and see junked cars parked out on the back forty. Old Curtis Mathis televisions junked in the front yard and burn piles in the back. Hell, Texans learn to dance by stomping cockroaches.

Yes, Texas is a beautiful place, (for the most part) despite of all the Texans that live there.

But the gulf coast, around Houston, is a toxic shithole. But Texas is so big, it's easy to just "hide" the junk, trash and pollution "out back" rather than practice habits of cleanliness.

Seriously. Who in their right mind would advocate for filth and pollution as Texas, (and modern day conservatives) do? That might sound unreasonable to most folks but Texans are a unique breed. In all honestly, I wasn't much different when I had a Texas mindset. I have tripped enough pipe on too many land rigs and offshore rigs to stretch to the moon and back. Although it never made me rich, it did put food on our table and clothes on our back. I am responsible for enough pollution down there to where I have no right pointing any fingers at anyone. I remember, working offshore, we usually waited until night time to dump our toxic sludge overboard and, on the land rigs, we would burn our trash piles at night. I never questioned it or pushed back. I just did what I was told to do. Of course, back then, pollution wasn't regulated as strictly as it is now.
 
AGW is dicey science in the first place. There are too many unknowns and variables which are assumed constant to produce a workable model. After 50 years the science still formative.

When you focus only on CO2 emissions, you leave the science and get into horror fiction.
It's gone beyond science and predictions. People's lives are being affected, jobs are being lost. Changes that should take centuries are happening in a generation.
It's happening fastest at high latitudes where there aren't many people. But my neighbour's are affected, people have been laid off in the aquaculture industry here because of seawater acidification affecting shellfish.
 
So long as energy companies in Texas can charge people 5000-17000 dollars during emergencies, they should be OK.
That was only people who tried to save money by getting electricity from the wholesale market.
I fully expect that will not be allowed in the future.
While most people in Texas are paying a fixed rate of between $.08 and $.12 per KWh,
some thought they could beat the odds, and pay a fixed fee and get their electricity at the wholesale rate.
This works when the supply is greater than demand, and the wholesale rate is $.02 to $.05 pe KWh,
but not so well when the demand exceeds supply, and the wholesale rate jumps to over $9.00 KWh.
A fixed rate is higher, but the utility absorbs the market movement.
 
I guess it's too late to say "INB4 armchair wannabes pretend that plumbers who watch too much Fox can *just know* that an entire field of science is bunk after seeing their thousandth episode of ****er Carlson" . . .


These people would never dare instruct their neurosurgeon on how his training and experience are all wrong, and how he must thus use a different non-standard technique for a surgery he is about to perform on them. After all, the risk of being wrong is astronomical when one speaks of things one does not have the tools to even partially understand, and the harm immediate. But AGW? Well, if the only thing one believes about it is that bad things will happen forty or fifty years down the line, someone else will be dealing with that, right? So it's easy to be a know-it-all denier (who knows nothing at all in reality).

Someone else is gonna pay the real price, so what do you care? So you deny away, even though you could never hope to understand let alone publish a peer-reviewed paper in the field...
 
It's gone beyond science and predictions. People's lives are being affected, jobs are being lost. Changes that should take centuries are happening in a generation.
It's happening fastest at high latitudes where there aren't many people. But my neighbour's are affected, people have been laid off in the aquaculture industry here because of seawater acidification affecting shellfish.
:poop: Compost it and use it in your garden. This isn't science. This is Henny Penny crying that the sky is falling.

I guess it's too late to say "INB4 armchair wannabes pretend that plumbers who watch too much Fox can *just know* that an entire field of science is bunk after seeing their thousandth episode of ****er Carlson" . . .
I don't watch Tucker Carlson, so I don't know what he is saying. What you are saying is bunk.

It isn't that the science is wrong, but that it's still underdeveloped. After 50 years we still do not have an even marginally successful model. Saying that the science requires any sort of action is rhetoric. The science does not support it.

These people would never dare instruct their neurosurgeon on how his training and experience are all wrong, and how he must thus use a different non-standard technique for a surgery he is about to perform on them. After all, the risk of being wrong is astronomical when one speaks of things one does not have the tools to even partially understand, and the harm immediate. But AGW? Well, if the only thing one believes about it is that bad things will happen forty or fifty years down the line, someone else will be dealing with that, right? So it's easy to be a know-it-all denier (who knows nothing at all in reality).

Someone else is gonna pay the real price, so what do you care? So you deny away, even though you could never hope to understand let alone publish a peer-reviewed paper in the field...
This is fantasy stuff, unrelated to the real world. While there may be people saying it is all wrong, there are even more people saying the opposite, which is also a mistake. AGW has been demonstrated, though it took 30 years to do that. We still do not know how it works, past vague generalities. We do not have any method for stopping it. In particular, blaming it all on carbon dinoxide is NOT what the science says. Quite the contrary. We are close to establishing that CO2 is insufficient as a primary causative.

The good news is that science is showing that AGW is slow. There are decades available for small, incremental adjustments. But, it's only science. Feel free to ignore it.
 
Last edited:
:poop: Compost it and use it in your garden. This isn't science. This is Henny Penny crying that the sky is falling.


I don't watch Tucker Carlson, so I don't know what he is saying. What you are saying is bunk.

It isn't that the science is wrong, but that it's still underdeveloped. After 50 years we still do not have an even marginally successful model. Saying that the science requires any sort of action is rhetoric. The science does not support it.


This is fantasy stuff, unrelated to the real world. While there may be people saying it is all wrong, there are even more people saying the opposite, which is also a mistake. AGW has been demonstrated, though it took 30 years to do that. We still do not know how it works, past vague generalities. We do not have any method for stopping it. In particular, blaming it all on carbon dinoxide is NOT what the science says. Quite the contrary. We are close to establishing that CO2 is insufficient as a primary causative.

The good news is that science is showing that AGW is slow. There are decades available for small, incremental adjustments. But, it's only science. Feel free to ignore it.
It's gone beyond science and predictions. People's lives are being affected.

"Oyster and other shellfish farmers along the Georgia Strait are experiencing the effects of climate change today. The oceans are becoming acidic. Every year, roughly one third of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions dissolves in the oceans, forming carbonic acid. In the past 200 years, global oceans have become 30% more acidic – the most dramatic change in ocean chemistry in the past 50 million years."


"Homes are sinking and trees are tipping over in Alaska. Mammoth bones are surfacing in the Russian Far East — so many that people have begun selling the tusks as a substitute for elephant ivory. And in 2016, more than 70 people in western Siberia were hospitalized for exposure to anthrax, likely spread from a decades-old reindeer carcass that thawed from frozen ground."


This isn't "the sky is falling" scaremongering predictions of imminent doomsday. This is now, today, and if you don't care because It's hundreds and thousands of miles away, just wait. Global warming will start affecting your life soon enough.
Oddly enough, global warming affects the high altitude jet stream, making it look like a since wave with greatly increased amplitude and bringing arctic air further south. If you get more and more 'generational' cold snaps, that's part of the warming.
 
I would just say that all people should stand and take notice of who presses for a cleaner environment and who pushes back on any regulation that fights pollution. That alone should tell you all you need to know when it comes to politics and filth.

Being born and raised in Texas, I can say that, for the most part, the fossil fuel (oil) industry has put food on the table for many generations of Texans, (like me) and their disdain for the industry and it's associated pollution, is not like it is in other parts of the country. It is far more acceptable in that neck of the woods.

Generally speaking, have you ever taken a drive through the great state of Texas? It is absolutely beautiful in most parts. But, then again, a LOT of Texans do not share the same "pride" in their property as I have observed in other parts of the country. It is not uncommon at all, (in fact it is VERY common) to drive past someone's home and see junked cars parked out on the back forty. Old Curtis Mathis televisions junked in the front yard and burn piles in the back. Hell, Texans learn to dance by stomping cockroaches.

Yes, Texas is a beautiful place, (for the most part) despite of all the Texans that live there.

But the gulf coast, around Houston, is a toxic shithole. But Texas is so big, it's easy to just "hide" the junk, trash and pollution "out back" rather than practice habits of cleanliness.

Seriously. Who in their right mind would advocate for filth and pollution as Texas, (and modern day conservatives) do? That might sound unreasonable to most folks but Texans are a unique breed. In all honestly, I wasn't much different when I had a Texas mindset. I have tripped enough pipe on too many land rigs and offshore rigs to stretch to the moon and back. Although it never made me rich, it did put food on our table and clothes on our back. I am responsible for enough pollution down there to where I have no right pointing any fingers at anyone. I remember, working offshore, we usually waited until night time to dump our toxic sludge overboard and, on the land rigs, we would burn our trash piles at night. I never questioned it or pushed back. I just did what I was told to do. Of course, back then, pollution wasn't regulated as strictly as it is now.


To the bolded: In 2006, I rode from east to west and returned two weeks later. I went out mostly on I 80 and returned on I 20. I left San Diego and on the second night I found myself in the Midland/Odessa area. I checked into a motel and settled in.

When I checked out the next morning, I complained to the desk clerk that there must be some mistake. He enquired as to what I was talking about. I replied that the prior desk clerk had already rented my room to another family. He asked what I meant and I replied that there was an entire colony of roaches already staying in room 202.
 
It's gone beyond science and predictions. People's lives are being affected.

"Oyster and other shellfish farmers along the Georgia Strait are experiencing the effects of climate change today. The oceans are becoming acidic. Every year, roughly one third of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions dissolves in the oceans, forming carbonic acid. In the past 200 years, global oceans have become 30% more acidic – the most dramatic change in ocean chemistry in the past 50 million years."

"Homes are sinking and trees are tipping over in Alaska. Mammoth bones are surfacing in the Russian Far East — so many that people have begun selling the tusks as a substitute for elephant ivory. And in 2016, more than 70 people in western Siberia were hospitalized for exposure to anthrax, likely spread from a decades-old reindeer carcass that thawed from frozen ground."

This isn't "the sky is falling" scaremongering predictions of imminent doomsday. This is now, today, and if you don't care because It's hundreds and thousands of miles away, just wait. Global warming will start affecting your life soon enough.
Oddly enough, global warming affects the high altitude jet stream, making it look like a since wave with greatly increased amplitude and bringing arctic air further south. If you get more and more 'generational' cold snaps, that's part of the warming.
I will admit the first one is interesting, but it's a small change and we can cope. That's the point. There are changes occurring, but we can cope.

The second one is simple alarmism. It truly deserves the Chicken Little seal of approval, but it's not science. it's very far from science.
 
I will admit the first one is interesting, but it's a small change and we can cope. That's the point. There are changes occurring, but we can cope.

The second one is simple alarmism. It truly deserves the Chicken Little seal of approval, but it's not science. it's very far from science.
No It's not. Alarmism. People in the north rely on the freezing schedule. Ice roads are late forming and early fading. My wife is from up there and keeps in touch and the elders in small villages along the MacKenzie River talk a lot about how late freeze-up has become. That's not science and it doesn't affect anything you think is important but it's happening now. And it's going to get worse. It happens first at high lattitudes but it will happen further south.
The changes will only accelerate. There's no hope of stopping the changes. The only hope is to slow the rate of change, and that in a nutshell is the problem with global warming, the rate of the changes. Climate changes that used to take centuries now happen in a generation. That's why shellfish haven't evolved to adapt to the changes and that's just the example that comes first to mind.
Do what you want with this. It's not like you or I can make a difference either way. It's going to be tough explaining to grandkids though why we squeezed the last buck out of the system and screwed the consequences when they have to deal with the consequences. Like you said, we can cope.
 
Typical NYT spin of the facts. Texas is the #1 state for alternate energy generation, excluding hydroelectric.

I do not understand why the hostility to natural gas. It's non polluting and we have depth of resources.

J
Yeah...that really showed last week......
 




One thing is certain, the Texas state GOP will continue to bend to the will of the Texas energy industry at the expense of correcting this decades-long deregulation mess, and of combatting climate change.
The Green New Deal is a complete impossibility. We cannot get 100% of energy from GND in10 years or 50 or 100. It will never happen.
 
In my line of work we sometimes have to do destructive testing that can involve lots of fire and smoke. There is no better, easier place to do it than Texas. They really don’t care how much their own backyard gets polluted. It’s too bad the state has no Yucca Mountain equivalent.
 
Back
Top Bottom