The anti-woke mind virus.

Over the past 15 years or so, huge technological progress has, in many cases, made it cheaper to generate electricity from solar and wind power than by burning fossil fuels. The Inflation Reduction Act — which is, despite its name, mainly a climate bill — aims to accelerate the transition to renewables and also to electrify as much of the economy as possible.

Even before the I.R.A. started to take effect, however, America was experiencing a renewable energy boom. And the boom has been led by a surprising place. Here’s a map showing renewable electricity generation other than hydroelectric by state (darker means more generation):



You might think, then, that Texas politicians would be celebrating the renewables boom, which is both good for the state’s economy and an advertisement for the state’s laissez-faire policies.

But no. Republicans in the Texas legislature have turned hard against renewable energy, with a raft of proposed measures that would subsidize fossil fuels, impose restrictions that might block many renewable energy projects and maybe even shut down many existing facilities.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/opinion/texas-wind-renewable-energy.html

Krugman goes on to define the Repub, anti-woke mind virus as..."which in this faction’s eyes means both any acknowledgment of social injustice and any suggestion that people should make sacrifices, or even accept mild inconvenience, in the name of the public good."

He suggests TX's turn against wind energy has to do with Repubs there letting energy production get caught up in the culture wars. Kind of a "liberal man bad" thing giving TX Repubs a brand spanking new rationale for being regressive.

 

Since when has the energy sector been laissez-faire? Now it's renewables getting subsidies and before that it was hydrocarbons.

 

People who think the world can get by with wind and solar should be given their own little continent to live in and freeze or starve to death. Even fertilizers are made from petro-chemicals you know.

 

Who thinks we can achieve this with currently available technology or without significant upgrades and expenditure?

Serious question, source them.

 

I have yet to find a definition of wokeness that does not also apply to the political right. If I were to define it as I see it used it would go something like this; To be woke is to believe fallacies as truths and be ignorant of our error. If that is the definition of woke then we are all woke to an unknowable degree.

 

Based upon videos I have watched of MAGA supporters trying to define woke it is obvious that the right can’t even agree upon what it is let alone see it in themselves.

 

many have gone off grid with solar - diversity means we are not dependent on just one source of energy

most that go off grid also have a gas or propane generator and maybe even wind power

no one thinks oil will not be used for many many things long into the future, the idea is to diversify

 

Good to know the anti-fossil fuel crowd still has some degree of sanity. Oil derived products will be around for practically forever if for nothing more than lubrication of moving parts.

 

yep, some on the anti-oil and some on the anti-solar\wind go way too far

 

The reference was to TX's laissez-faire approach to regulation of any kind.

Texas battery rush: Oil state's power woes fuel energy storage boom
https://www.reuters.com/business/en...wer-woes-fuel-energy-storage-boom-2023-05-31/

The anti-woke mind virus is at odds with free enterprise.

 

No, the idea is to allow the market to decide. THIS is what works. You get a bunch of ideological self-interested people together to make policy and you will find out quickly what does not work.

Solar and wind are fringe technologies. Have a chat with some Germans on how their transition is going. The ideological morons in Germany seemed to forget that they have minimal sunshine and not too much wind when they were organically fomenting policy over at the Church of Solar, Wind, and Bike Lane Expansion soiree.

 

I'd be okay with letting the market decide.......

Americans Largely Favor U.S. Taking Steps To Become Carbon Neutral by 2050
https://www.pewresearch.org/science...new survey finds 69,oil, coal and natural gas.

........were it not for legacy energy companies exerting tremendous influence on public policy regarding the essential shift to renewable energy. Not just by spewing misinformation about climate change to the public but by using their considerable lobbying power to protect their profits at the expense of all of us.

 

the market is deciding, the right hates that, the market likes diversity and please do not modify my post, if you want to quote a part, do it in your own post

 

And I am sure that Americans largely favor world peace, every day being 78F sunny and dry, honest politicians, faithful spouses, well-behaved kids that do great in school, and all the other fantasies.

The most important policy that will help all concerned is to keep energy costs as reasonable as possible so that more and more people can gain some wealth. Once people are lifted out of poverty and into some kind of decent existence, then they begin to care about environmental concerns.

The current green policy is backfiring for all the reasons predicted. You cannot use ideology to create policy. THIS should have been the lesson of the 20th century. Ideology leaching in the practical world is always a disaster.

 

Yes, it likes diversity of thought so people can make informed decisions. People DO NOT like having weird stuff being shoved down their throats [and especially when you are messing with their kids]. For example, most of the trans community does not support the fringe who believe the way to acceptance is to try and make everybody as miserable as they are.

The general population knows these are not people you want around your kids [or any other unstable people]. The children of this society must be protected from anybody who attempts to convince them of anything thought inappropriate by their parents and institutions supported by their parents.

 

diversity of energy sources, lose one, still have other options, some republicans want to put all their eggs in one basket

 

Let the market decide. Even with all the corruption, it's by far the best way to go.

 

the market is deciding

 

Spoken like a climate change denier.

 

But not fast enough. Hence, government intervention on a global scale.

 

algerias solar industry is booming. it appears that the fight against solar power is from the cold regions of the earth like america, that really only has fossil fuels since wind energy is unreliable. its no surprise that american politicians would want to kill this solar energy plan since they cannot profit from it and will become a basket case when we convert to solar power.

 

Huh?

 

If A, then B, right?. You might contemplate expanding your horizons by considering C, D, or even E.,

 

It makes sense to do what makes sense. Nobody has a problem with using solar where it makes sense, but if you are going to shove it down people's throats at a higher costs where the majority of the population does not have their hair on fire about the dire necessity of doing this stat, well, you're going to have a lot of push-back...and rightfully so.

 

"The most important policy that will help all concerned is to keep energy costs as reasonable as possible so that more and more people can gain some wealth."

Depends on how the energy is generated. What's more important, gaining wealth or having a livable planet?