Rob Meyer in the Atlantic:

For the past week, the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates, grassroots organizers, and national committee have fought over whether it would be a good idea to have a “climate-change debate.”

Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, whose presidential campaign is focused on climate change, started the fight a few weeks ago, when he demanded that Democrats devote one of their dozen scheduled primary debates to climate change—both to what it will mean domestically and internationally and to what candidates presume to do about it. Last week, the Democratic National Committee responded by telling Inslee that it wouldn’t hold a climate debate—and that if he appeared in one, it would block him from all future officially sanctioned debates.

Inslee responded with outrage, and since then the DNC has been trying to defend itself. Tom Perez, the DNC chair, has tried to justify the DNC’s decision in a few different ways. He published a Medium post titled “On Debates” earlier this week. “If we change our guidelines at the request of one candidate who has made climate change their campaign’s signature issue, how do we say no to the numerous other requests we’ve had?” he pleaded. The tone demonstrates how poorly the DNC has fared here: Almost nobody has ever published a hyper-earnest Medium post from a position of strength.

The DNC actually has a fine reason for declining Inslee’s request: Adding a single-issue climate debate would be against its rules, which it wrote to account for, and avoid, the bitterness left over from 2016. But the DNC ispretty weak here. Polls suggest that climate change is a top-tier issue for the party’s primary voters. At this point, 14 candidates have expressed some interest in a climate debate—15, if you include Joe Biden’s quick assent to the idea, captured on video by a Greenpeace activist. If five of them, including Elizabeth Warren, go rogue and hold a climate debate of their own, will the DNC really bar them from its official debates?

Read the rest of this entry »

Science deniers love to wax poetic about the joys of “baseload” coal fired power plants – most of which are old, creaky, and polluting as hell.

Nature, in the form of climate-fueled flooding on the Mississippi, has provided a useful test of that notion.

LaCrosse Tribune (Wisconsin):

Dairyland Power Cooperative took its coal-fired power plant in Genoa offline at the beginning of June to avoid fuel shortages caused by the lack of barges carrying coal up a flooded Mississippi River.

Instead, the La Crosse-headquartered cooperative is purchasing electricity from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc. market to make up for the power normally produced by the plant in Genoa, said Phil Moilien, Dairyland’s vice president.

MISO manages a wholesale electricity market that spans several states in the Midwest, including parts of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Missouri.

At face value, buying power from the grid could be cheaper for Dairyland than running its coal plant.

Dairyland’s 345-megawatt coal-fired power plant is one of 17 coal plants in Wisconsin. At 50 years old, it’s the eighth oldest coal-burning power plant in the state.

Record flooding along the Mississippi River, especially in Missouri and Iowa, has delayed commercial barge traffic for months, keeping grain from moving downstream and fertilizers, cement, salt and coal from moving upstream.

Since the Genoa plant, situated along the Mississippi River, gets its coal solely by barge, Moilien said, Dairyland made the decision to temporarily halt operations “not because we are out of coal, but to ensure we have enough coal for the summer months.”

Moilien declined to say how much coal it had stockpiled from the winter, saying the amount was “proprietary.”

Dairyland, as a cooperative, is not required to share its operation and maintenance costs with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The cooperative declined to say how much it costs to generate power at its Genoa plant.

Read the rest of this entry »

Anti-nuke types are going to have to come to the realization that we have a storage problem with nuclear waste, and keeping it, for instance, on the beach of the Pacific Ocean, or the Great Lakes, is not a sustainable solution.

That means we all just have to agree it needs to be transported, and placed, perhaps in retrievable form someplace where a leak is at least unlikely.
Maturity required.

Or, similar question, “Why is the Green New deal?”

Answer is that, there is no legislation yet. Turns out this kind of massive program is really, really, really hard to put together.
To do it, we’re going to have to do a whole lot more than tweet-shame Nancy Pelosi – we, all of us, are going to have to get involved with the process and push from the grass-roots – because the alternative is simply too grim to consider.

The insights I got from Rob Meyer in December are still cogent.