Isaac is subtweeting me here for some reason — I’m not sure why. Here’s the passage in question. You can decide whether it has anything to do gender, or whether my point is that Joe Manchin ultimately *did* negotiate and vote for aggressive climate policy, while Kathy Hochul ultimately vetoed it.
*checking others' notes*
a man who torpedoes progressive and bold climate action is "canny, risk-taking, proud, and courageous"
a woman who torpedoes progressive and bold climate action is "a loser"
heard.
New podcast:
Will the AI boom break the electricity system — or the climate?
We talked to Jonathan Koomey, who studies computing’s energy & environmental impact. His verdict: “Everyone needs to calm the heck down.”
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s...
RSS: shows.acast.com/65bac3af0334...
Something I have suspected and now fully believe is that Hollywood’s decade-long failure to mint new movie stars was a ZIRP www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie...
it is absolutely not enough. that’s why I say explicitly in the story that you're screenshotting: the existence of cheap, abundant technological replacements is not enough; the world will also need to phase out fossil fuels.
heatmap.news/technology/c...
I found the climate angle in the OpenAI fracas
(it’s the rise of nonprofits that are solely controlled by their board — a real and possibly troubling phenomenon!)
heatmap.news/economy/open...
I wrote about the past and future of Joe Manchin, who had — and may still have — more influence over the climate than any other American
heatmap.news/politics/joe...
“Last night’s election was a much bigger blow to the anti-abortion movement than even the midterms,” writes @rachelmcohen.bsky.social. “Last night anti-abortion campaigners in Ohio did everything the ‘pro-life’ movement urged them to do … and still lost.”
rmcohen.substack.com/p/abortion-l...
Whenever Verstappen wins, the F1 push alert is like “59 quick laps in Doha - and somebody won them,” and whenever literally anyone else wins the push alert is like “A pulse-pounding EPIC for the ages in Mexico - bracingly sonnetlike - with a heroic, good, even SOLOMONIC champion atop it all”
Mercedes is planning a network of luxury EV charging “hubs” that include baristas, nice-feeling retail, a reservation system, and the fastest charging speeds in America. The first one is slated for Atlanta. heatmap.news/electric-veh...
Yes, but much of that $7T would be *new* revenue. OP believed — and this is a reasonable way to interpret the IMF’s claim — that governments have already collected that $7T and that it reflects spending that can be redirected to another purpose in the same way you move $ around a bank account.
“Why don’t we address explicit subsidies, then?” here’s the next challenge. most explicit subsidies are in MENA and central asia— where oil production is state-controlled. in the US, fossil-fuel subsidies look more like residential winter heating discounts for low-income households (like LIHEAP)
The world does not actually subsidize fossil fuels by $7 trillion, and it is super misleading that the IMF continues to claim that it does. What happens is that the IMF calculates the (huge) externalities of fossil fuels and calls them an “implicit subsidy.” Actual subsidies are about $1.3 trillion.
Yes, although an interesting wrinkle is that most of the “explicit subsidies” the IMF finds come from places where oil companies are already state-owned — they are fuel discounts for citizens of oil-producing states. But further nationalization could address some externalities in developed markets
The world does not actually subsidize fossil fuels by $7 trillion, and it is super misleading that the IMF continues to claim that it does. What happens is that the IMF calculates the (huge) externalities of fossil fuels and calls them an “implicit subsidy.” Actual subsidies are about $1.3 trillion.
I bet if world governments directed the $7 trillion annual subsidies to fossil fuels -- an amount nearly equal to 1/3 of US GDP -- to renewables, things would look very different. Even simply cutting off the subsidies and not changing anything else would also be transformative.
Biden’s climate law contained $100B+ in grants & rebates.
The government has spent about $11B of that so far.
It’s largely gone to (1) EVs for the USPS, (2) climate-friendly ag programs, (3) expanding Energy Department capacity, and (4) conservation research. heatmap.news/economy/infl...
I’m a little surprised at the online reaction to this poll. We’ve known for a while that large majorities of Americans are happy to live near wind and solar farms. The problem is that that their enthusiasm is shallow, and a minority can block a project anyway. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solu...
The most revealing headline you'll see all week. The media obviously lets Republicans dictate their narratives & assumes voters are much more conservative than they really are - but it's rare they admit it like this.
But then as we (very infamously) found, those same respondents were extremely vulnerable to conservation-based arguments against renewables in their communities. We know that most people are open to renewables when they’re first announced — the Q is what happens next heatmap.news/americans-lo...
Last month was 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than any September ever measured.
And it was more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit warmer (that’s ~1.8C!!!) than pre-industrial temperatures.
heatmap.news/climate/sept...
