To Whom it May Concern: Voters Overwhelmingly Support Clean Energy Policies

October 21, 2021

New Research today from Yale and George Mason University.
Turns out people like clean energy and don’t want the planet to become uninhabitable.

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication:

Global Warming and Clean Energy as Government Priorities

  • 60% of registered voters say global warming should be a high or very high priority for the president and Congress.
  • 69% of registered voters say developing sources of clean energy should be a high or very high priority for the president and Congress.

Global Warming and Energy Policies

Majorities of registered voters support a range of policies to reduce carbon pollution and promote clean energy. These include:

  • 86% support providing tax incentives or rebates to homeowners, landlords, and businesses to make existing buildings more energy efficient.
  • 81% support funding more research into renewable energy sources.
  • 81% support providing tax rebates to people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels.
  • 79% support providing tax incentives or rebates to homeowners, landlords, and businesses to purchase appliances that can be powered without burning fossil fuels.
  • 75% support setting aside 30% of America’s lands and waters for conservation by 2030.
  • 75% support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
  • 74% support requiring publicly traded corporations to disclose how much carbon pollution they produce
  • 70% support transitioning the U.S. economy (including electric utilities, transportation, buildings, and industry) from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy by 2050.
  • 70% support increasing federal funding to low-income communities and communities of color who are disproportionally harmed by air and water pollution.
  • 69% support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a tax on the carbon pollution they produce, and using that revenue to reduce other taxes (such as the federal income tax) by an equal amount (i.e., a revenue-neutral carbon tax).
  • 66% support requiring electric utilities to produce 100% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2035.

Declaring Climate Change a National Emergency

  • 63% support a U.S. president declaring global warming a national emergency if Congress does not act.

Energy Production as an Economic Issue

  • 52% say that policies to promote clean energy will improve economic growth and create jobs, while 31% say these policies will reduce growth and cost jobs.
  • 64% say that increasing production of clean energy in the U.S. will produce more new jobs than will increasing fossil fuel production.

Who Should Act?

  • 73% say corporations and industry should do more to address global warming.
  • Half or more say the following should do more to address global warming: citizens (69%), the Republican Party (66%), the U.S. Congress (64%), their local government officials (61%), the Democratic Party (60%), their governor (60%), the media (59%), President Biden (58%), and they themselves (55%).

Local and State Government Action on Global Warming

  • Majorities support climate-friendly policies for their local community, including providing funding to help homeowners make energy-efficient improvements to their homes (85%), increasing the availability of public transportation in their county (85%), and constructing bike paths and installing bike lanes on city streets (80%).

45 Responses to “To Whom it May Concern: Voters Overwhelmingly Support Clean Energy Policies”


  1. Wise voters who support clean energy. Thank you 😊

  2. jimbills Says:

    Until people starting voting like they care about this, I take polls like this as just talk. They obviously care about other things more than clean energy and climate change to be a consistent near 50/50 split for decades now on both the President and Congress, even with the electoral college and political districting skewed towards favoring Republicans.

    • ecoquant Says:

      Fortunately or not, reading the series and trends, there is going to be a solid economic cost to individuals, families, and towns who do not get on board with EVs, distributed generation including self-generation, being a prosumer, and demanding utilities, towns, and states treat them with the respect of being a participant in the energy marketplace.

      There will also be an economic cost if people buy homes in areas susceptible to flooding, or are employed by companies which ignore these risks.

      And there will be an economic cost if people don’t pay attention to where their personal and retirement investments are placed. The word: stranded assets.

      While we collectively should do something about environmental and climate justice, I see no interest on the part of the United States majority (at least) to be interested in this. Suburban peoples value birds more than communities of color and low income neighborhoods. They don’t want to give up an acre of land to solar and wind farms, but, of course, it’s fine if they consume electricity generated by toxic fossil fuel generation located near historically disadvantaged communities.

    • jimbills Says:

      Article today in WP:
      Democrats’ problem is not focusing on issues most vital to independents, 2 prominent pollsters say
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-midterm-independents/2021/10/23/4271ad96-335f-11ec-a1e5-07223c50280a_story.html

      For those that can’t read it (requires subscription), here’s the gist – Biden’s approval rating sucks. He won because of independents, and he’s rapidly losing them. There’s a part of the article that is very relevant to the discussion in this post, though. It shows how, while many claim they care about climate change, the majority hardly prioritize it:

      ‘In their survey of more than 2,600 likely voters, the pollsters asked respondents to cite their three most important issues. Democratic voters chose climate change, pandemic recovery and “raising taxes on the rich” as their most important issues, closely followed by “health insurance coverage/costs.”

      And now Democrats in Washington are crafting a multitrillion-dollar agenda that focuses on expanding access to health care, battling climate change and providing better child care, all financed by taxing the wealthy.

      But that menu does not quite match the interests of independent voters, who chose “economy/inflation/jobs” as their top concern, with “immigration and border security” close behind and then “covid-19 pandemic recovery.”’

      • ecoquant Says:

        Agree on Biden. And agree on the Dems, and that’s unfortunate.

        I think it’s partly a mistake to rely upon a political party to get climate mitigation in place, and also a mistake to blame a political party — or a fixed set of companies — for blocking such.

        There’s a lot of inertia among everyday Americans of all income and influence levels. Many don’t like change because they fear it will mean something about their personal economies or life patterns will change.

        Accordingly, if solutions to climate disruption occur, the easier way of convincing people is if these are based upon pure economic considerations. Fortunately, no matter how much, in my neck o’ th’ woods, people block solar farms and wind turbines because they don’t like how they look, or believe the bupkis from the American Bird Conservancy about them, or think Big Green companies are just as bad as Big Fossil, eventually they will not be able to ignore the superior economics of zero Carbon energy, whether they want to work on climate or not. Same is true of EVs.

        Eventually wind+solar+storage will bulldoze everything in its way, because no one can ignore a source of energy which is reliable, long-lived, and essentially free, no matter what else they might think.

        • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

          The decades of relentless lobbying and doubtmongering of the FF interests was vile, but not technically illegal. It effectively undermined the ability to motivate more people to do something about climate change earlier.

          I do hope that some of those companies get prosecuted for lying to their stockholders about the situation at least. It’s more likely they’ll get some weak-arse fine that’s usually considered the Cost Of Doing Business.

          Gotta post this again:

          • J4Zonian Says:

            The only punishment remotely appropriate to what the fossil fuel, ICEV, rail, agro-chemical, banking, and other industries have done is capital punishment. At least for the corporations, and industry and other “non-profits” (LMAO), who should have their charters revoked and be fined enough more than their complete assets that the people running them are ruined and can’t pay for their defense against SEC fraud, RICO, and felony murder charges. Funding would need to be revealed completely and all the donors to organizations funding or committing climate lies should be ruined as well.

            It would certainly end the corporations’ and right wing’s campaign of lies.

            We should also have a truth and reconciliation process—avoiding a lifetime in prison in exchange for telling everything they know, turning over all documents, all money and assets accumulated while committing the crimes in question, and agreeing to never hold another position of authority of any kind.

          • ecoquant Says:

            I daresay while that may be just, fixing climate disruption won’t happen without them.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            It won’t happen with them; they’ve made that absolutely 100% perfectly completely without any doubt clear for 4 decades, without ever wavering from that position even once. Although I certainly can take an educated guess professionally, personally I simply do not understand what is wrong with people who can’t/won’t understand that or lie about it.

            The only way it can possibly happen is without them.

            The longer it takes climate activists and the left to adjust to that reality and act on it, the more people and species will die and the more likely the end of life on Earth is.

          • ecoquant Says:

            And how are “climate activists” going to amass the technical expertise and the capital needed to do the 15+ trillion U.S. dollar transformation of fossil energy to all electrical, not only for electricity and heating and transport, but manufacturing and other industries?

            The transformation can be done, and the transition will inevitably have costs, but there’s no way the transformation can succeed without some kind of replication of the existing system.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            “was”? “undermined”?

            That gives the impression they’ve stopped.

            They haven’t.

            Leaked Docs Reveal Fossil Fuel-Soaked Nations Lobbying to Sabotage Climate Action
            October 21, 2021
            https://climatecrocks.com/2021/10/21/to-whom-it-may-concern-voters-overwhelmingly-support-clean-energy-policies/comment-page-1/#comment-121920

      • J4Zonian Says:

        “Independent voters” has become a euphemism for propertytarians–selfish conservatives (sorry for the repetitive redundancy) who aren’t quite so gone that they like the relentless fascism-ward drive or personality disordered T-party Republicans. Theirs was a shotgun marriage to Biden and it’s falling apart; unfortunately the Democrats are more likely to veer to the right to court them than anything else. The vast majority of people have no clue how dire the climate/inequality-fascism crisis is, or how radical the solutions required to actually solve it are. Maybe it would balance out, but until people do have some idea about reality, asking them to decide what to do is nuts.

        To survive as they are, the Democratic “leadership” has to keep both sides of the party thinking the party is on their side. The propertytarians get the lie and are getting what they want from both halves of the party, so it takes a wink from them and complete idiotic gullibility from the left, both of which they seem to be getting. That’s breaking down as the left wises up, but the party is held hostage by the split in the Senate and can’t shift now without losing the majority. It would be far more strategic to let Manchin play the fulcrum for now while moving strongly to the left nationally, to engage the large numbers of progressives revealed by the polls. There are so many (60% and above) they must also include and would attract a fair number of less property-oriented independents and even Republicans. But that would be against everything the oligarchic Democrats’ funders want.

        • ecoquant Says:

          Why the United States, for one, isn’t moving faster on climate, in my personal experience, isn’t the responsibility of either political party or fossil fuel companies. Most Americans dislike change, and rapid movement on energy and transport scares most of them.

          As a consequence, they oppose solar farms, wind farms, small nuclear, agrivoltaics, and the consequences of automobiles electrifying. They think it’ll harm their (highly inflated) home property values, that it will change the character of their towns. They oppose measures to protect same towns from ravages of climate disruption, which is both here and will get worse. Those protections need to primarily be protection against sustained downpours on drought dried ground.

          I think the only think that will change their minds is when the ultra low costs of wind+solar+storage bulldoze economically over them. And, yes, it will affect their property values, change the character of their towns, put gas stations out of business for the most part (good luck finding an ICE mechanic), downsize automotive dealerships, and contract a good chunk of the support market related to transport.

          But it will also build a workforce, although that buildout will primarily occur among blue collar people, not upper-middle or other classes.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            Are you ever going to figure out that the reason they think all that is because professional liars hired by the rich and the fossil-fueled lunatic right have told it to them thousands of times over the last 4 decades while taking over government and media to have more ways to get the message across?

            Capitalist economics got us into this mess; it will only get us in deeper until we stop using its judgment and have a strong democratic government act on our own judgment. (which is excellent, as you can tell by the polls.)

            It will take half a century too long to make a difference economically; civilization and most of nature will be over by then. Allowing evil bullshit “conservative-friendly” arguments to rule us will end the world.

            [More coming when it gets out of moderation.]

          • ecoquant Says:

            If the existing capital and engineering edifice is deconstructed for social and activist reasons, it will take centuries to get it back. Talk about being too late.

            Besides, if you poke at a lot of the claims made about certain banks and companies, such as JPMorgan Chase, you’ll find that some of the claims are not justified by the numbers these companies report regularly to their trading partners and to governments.

            Yes, of course, they still give loans to fossil fuel companies. But they have a point that if they were to withdraw, at present, because there are no alternative technologies, manufacturing would come to a standstill … Including to companies which make EVs as well as ICE vehicles.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            continue below


          • “Why the United States, for one, isn’t moving faster on climate, in my personal experience, isn’t the responsibility of either political party or fossil fuel companies. Most Americans dislike change, and rapid movement on energy and transport scares most of them.”

            You’re right about it not being a clear partisan thing, but you left out the detail of whole economies designed to keep growing. “Grow or die” is a common refrain in small towns, for example. No other animal needs to live like that, except parasites (sums up the real environmental problem).

            That same grow-forever attitude has been rebranded as “green growth” in a massive campaign to build electricity factories on what’s left of the world’s open space where wind blows and sun shines. These sprawling, ugly factories are branded as “clean energy” to make their proponents feel righteous and entrepreneurial.

            The voters who now approve of “renewables” spent decades approving old forms of environmental destruction until it reached a pollution crisis point. It’s not like they have any deeper insight today. The first wake up call was the 60s & 70s, resulting in the EPA, the 55 MPH speed limit, etc. Now, we’ve got 80 MPH limits and Peak Shale is approaching. People are still buying vehicles based on the price of oil, not a true concern for scarcity. They just grab whatever’s in front of them. Many only care about “clean energy” because it’s hyped as a job-creator, or they’re sold on Tesla 0-60 times.

            The average growth addict has just adopted a new angle to keep modern comforts flowing. They’ve convinced themselves that the newer green growth is truly new. They can’t see it’s a case of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” Dark & oily from below vs. white and skeletal on ridges or black desert lakes. The latter is built with the former because it could never scale up on its own.

            Compounding this is a new environmental wokeism that cancels any dissenting views, like the quaint respect for scenery. You’re either on board with far more industrialization of land & sea or you’re a “climate change denier.”

            Wiser people realize it’s all a messy continuum and AGW probably won’t be solved. That’s not optimistic, of course, so it goes in the cancel bin.


          • “I think the only think that will change their minds is when the ultra low costs of wind+solar+storage bulldoze economically over them. And, yes, it will affect their property values, change the character of their towns, put gas stations out of business for the most part (good luck finding an ICE mechanic), downsize automotive dealerships, and contract a good chunk of the support market related to transport.”

            Ultra low costs?! More like huge subsidies buried in greenspeak. There’s no proof that “renewables” built with fossil fuels out of necessity can magically render those same fuels obsolete. It’s part of why Mark Jacobson sued his detractors for $10 million when he couldn’t debunk them logically. But his fantasies are still peddled by Green New Dealers. People want to believe growth can go on and on.

            Few people bother to understand concepts like ERoI and Cubic Mile of Oil relative to alternative energy hype. Electricity has serious limits for heavy lifting and we’ve only seen what it can do WITH fossil fuels still handling the bulk of work, like a weak kid with a bodyguard. This is a temporary luxury for those who expect endless economic growth after shale fracking peaks. Many give it a double dose of denial by rejecting nuclear.

            Large-scale battery storage is a fantasy, much like biodiesel scaling beyond greasy kitchen supplies. When electric semi trucks hit the road we’ll see why their range on hills is poor. Batteries are far less energy-dense than fossil fuels per size & weight. Strong, portable energy requires heat, not magic. But even stationary “clean” electricity is relatively weak and intermittent. You can ignore this and move on with rhetoric, but you can’t disprove it in the real world.

            Man will end up burning all fossil fuels possible, learning too late that only they allowed all this growth. Intermittent failure of the Internet (not enough power for servers) will be a first sign. After the crash becomes obvious there won’t be enough oil left to disassemble the ugly chattel that aimed to replace it. Nuclear could help for awhile but will fail when fossil fuels can’t maintain its structure (think supply chains alone). Coal will probably make a comeback, reserved for crude survival purposes. AGW will finally slow and degrowth will occur by necessity.

            https://tinyurl.com/backtotheapes

          • ecoquant Says:

            Ultra low costs?! More like huge subsidies buried in greenspeak. There’s no proof that “renewables” built with fossil fuels out of necessity can magically render those same fuels obsolete. It’s part of why Mark Jacobson sued his detractors for $10 million when he couldn’t debunk them logically. But his fantasies are still peddled by Green New Dealers. People want to believe growth can go on and on.

            Few people bother to understand concepts like ERoI and Cubic Mile of Oil relative to alternative energy hype. Electricity has serious limits for heavy lifting and we’ve only seen what it can do WITH fossil fuels still handling the bulk of work, like a weak kid with a bodyguard. This is a temporary luxury for those who expect endless economic growth after shale fracking peaks. Many give it a double dose of denial by rejecting nuclear.

            None of that makes any sense from a financial perspective.

            Flipping that around, what’s wrong with the Lazard Levelized Cost series for Energy, Storage, etc? They show continued improvements, even without gov’t subsidies.

            They’re not the only ones.

            As far as Mark goes, his paper was peer-reviewed at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and each of the criticisms made of the people who commented have been shown to be inaccurate by others, as much as they may have seemed plausible at the time. You’re out of touch with that history, @False Progress.

            Dream on. We’ll see who will win.

          • ecoquant Says:

            By the way, to your “heavy lifting” comment, why not look up what powers the big shovels that do mountain-top removal?


          • Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragline_excavator

            Those draglines certainly aren’t powered by batteries, if you’re implying that somehow the electric motor types can exist without fossil fuels through the whole chain. But I’m not sure what you’re angle is, since you probably didn’t read my context.

            Building “renewables” with only “renewables” quickly runs into ERoI hurdles, which also causes diminishing returns with fossil fuels themselves (peak oil).

            You can’t build equal or greater volumes of stuff from energy with the same weakness, in other words. We just take it for granted that dense fossil fuels are still around to create the facade of independent “renewables.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

            Nuclear power is the only thing that uses the pseudo-miracle of splitting atoms for a lot more energy than you’d expect per volume. That’s why it’s the best bet, but its fuel still depletes, short of fusion. To rule it out, as many Greens do, is insane.

            My main purpose in posting is to cut through hopium and defend what’s left of open space from “renewables” monomania. I don’t don’t think Man deserves to avoid AGW with selfish destruction of natural lands and seas, even if I thought it was feasible.

          • ecoquant Says:

            No, they are not powered by batteries, but that wasn’t the point. They are powered by electric motors, and it doesn’t matter where the power comes from. The draglines are plugged into the grid, so a zero Carbon source of electrical energy could do the trick, too, whether that’s a big array of wind turbines smoothed via a big capacitor or a battery stack, or a small modular nuclear reactor.

            Machts nicht.


          • You don’t think I understand that mountaintop removal and all the rest are powered by fossil fuels? Changing the subject to financial minutia is just a dodge, like carbon credits that let corporations lie about using “100% renewable energy.” All of that has only been tested with the luxury of today’s fossil fuel contributions.

            Fossil fuels underlie just about everything, and can’t be magically omitted from involvement in “renewables.” As an example, try to demo how wind turbine energy could build other wind turbines on a big scale, starting with mining, material transport, smelting, manufacturing, road-building, trucking, crane work, maintenance and backup. Fossil fuels make it all happen. Theories of batteries that defy physics is all you’ve got.

            Given ideal topography and mines nearby, you might be able to build a few wind turbines with the energy from hundreds, but that’s negative ERoI, which halts any type of energy extraction. Entropy doesn’t go away just because something puts out electricity.

            I recommend this article to all green growth addicts and physics-deniers:

            https://www.postcarbon.org/why-climate-change-isnt-our-biggest-environmental-problem-and-why-technology-wont-save-us/

          • ecoquant Says:

            My reply was a response and a challenge to the claim that electrical motors could not move heavy things, using the case of drag lines as a counterexample to your claims. There was no purpose to it other than that.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            This was posted more than 3 weeks ago, is still in moderation for having 1 extra link so I’m reposting a version of it

            ”operational planning for world’s end”
            Tom Englehardt, Ending the World the Human Way

            Most of what’s good in the world makes bad economic “sense”. We already ostensibly do exactly what you’re saying would be good, and the result is that some people have accumulated enough of the interchangeable commodities, money and power, and the resulting connections, and control of all decision-making, to allow them to define anything any way they want. The realms in which the “economic” (ie, capitalist) idea of relationships holds sway covers pretty much the whole world now—all land, waters, atmosphere, all beings and bodies, family, recently even minds, thoughts, DNA. The oligarchic duopoly is in the process of extending it to history, science and all other reality; anything profitable (for the already-rich, as explained) is good and thus is mined, extracted and destroyed; anything not is destroyed.

            “Eventually” in ecological terms means “too late to help civilization and nature survive”. With the revelations of the past several decades, about the progress of climate catastrophe, the inexcusable behavior of industry and the global (English-speaking) right wing, the Panama and Pandora papers, the number of journalists and Earth activists killed so high and going up, and just plain observation about the state of the biosphere and human mind, this could be called humanity’s Iphigenia moment, when we suddenly realize we’re being sacrificed for the sake of nihilism, addiction, and hatred disguised as love.

            Wind & solar power expansion too slow to stop climate change
            chalmers[DOT]se/en/departments/see/news/Pages/Growth-of-solar-and-wind-power.aspx

            At 4°C of warming, would a billion people survive? What scientists say.
            http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html#more

            Professor Kevin Anderson, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, believes only around 10% of the planet’s population – around half a billion people – will survive if global temperatures rise by 4°C…
            The Scotsman reported this on 29 September 2009, at the conclusion of the “4 degrees and beyond” conference,:
            webcitation[DOT]org/5ul6K9Jmt?url=http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-billions39.5867379.jp

            The Climate Crisis Has Gone Critical
            Human-induced climate change has gotten so bad that our only hope isn’t to reverse it, but to simply save what we can.
            https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/07/23/climate-crisis-has-gone-critical?utm_term=AO&utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter&utm_content=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Email

            “bupkis” means “nothing” so your use doesn’t really make sense. As far as sense goes, your statement means bupkis.

  3. J4Zonian Says:

    Polls show a large majority of people do care about minority communities. In fact, gosh, it says right up there that 70% support more federal funding. Like everything on the list it should be 95%+ but lack of education about science and politics, plus pervasive lies about everything, mean people not only don’t get what they want they’re kept from knowing enough to figure out what they need.

    A lot of people vote in ways that show they care about all these things, when they get the chance, but the 2 major parties rarely put up good candidates for anything, or allow decent bills to get out of committee if they even get that far, and they actively prevent people from knowing the truth about issues and candidates. Corporate media aggressively collaborate in denying people information, and money, gerrymandering, voter suppression, courts packed with right wing lunatics, and other techniques prevent them from getting what they need and want even if they know enough.

  4. J4Zonian Says:

    I really hope Ecoquant is being intentionally dense because the alternative is too disturbing to contemplate.

    His or her comments at this point are too full of straw people, nonsensical assumptions and other deception and fractal wrongness to even try to respond.

    • ecoquant Says:

      So, J4Zonian, apparently you can’t respond. You have no evidence.

      Sorry, I’m disturbing. I’ve often thought that, in my life, that’s a good thing. Thoroughly ideological lives are rarely grounded in reality and evidence.

      • J4Zonian Says:

        And all you have is another moronic trick to project onto me to keep the fight going? You are too far lost in your confused conservative crap, and obviously pay no attention to evidence or wouldn’t have the opinions you have. Go post on Breetbart.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            “…with the respect of being a participant in the energy marketplace.”

            Over and over, bringing things back to individual responsibility for climate instead of the corporations and government that have been lying and worse for decades to create exactly the impasse we have.

            “the United States, for one, isn’t moving faster on climate, in my personal experience, isn’t the responsibility of either political party or fossil fuel companies. ”

            Over and over, bringing things back to thinking the “market” will take care of the climate crisis, despite the fact that it’s the main proximal cause and has made absolutely no move to shift anywhere near fast enough toward sustainability to avoid ending civilization. Completely ignoring the fact that the only market we have is controlled by a few huge corporations and extremely rich people (who also control the government).

            “…there’s no way the transformation can succeed without some kind of replication of the existing system.”

            “fixing climate disruption won’t happen without [the people who have caused it].”

            “how are “climate activists” going to amass the technical expertise and the capital needed to do the 15+ trillion…”

            “If the existing capital and engineering edifice is deconstructed for social and activist reasons, it will take centuries to get it back.” (Then you go on to defend banks, etc. with bizarrely vague, unknowledgeable, trusting, and ineffective arguments. And say there are “no alternative technologies”… To what? fossil fuels and nukes?

            If you don’t like people thinking of yourself as a conservative, you could always stop sounding like one.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            ‘A death sentence’: Indigenous climate activists denounce Cop26 deal
            “Schemes such as carbon trading favored by polluting nations lead to ecologically destructive projects like biofuels and dams”

            “Indigenous communities facing an upsurge in land grabs, water shortages and human rights violations as a result of the Cop26 deal have accused world leaders of sacrificing them in order to postpone meaningful climate action and shield corporate profits.”

            “The Glasgow deal creates a regulated global carbon trading market – a move widely supported by the world’s biggest polluters including the US – allowing countries to partially meet their climate targets by buying credits representing emission cuts by others.”

            “At least 1,005 environmental and land rights defenders have been murdered since the Paris accords were signed six years ago, according to the international non-profit Global Witness.”

            “Net zero is a scam. It is used as a smokescreen to avoid actual transition away from fossil fuels and carry on business as usual by relying on unproven carbon capture technologies and offsets,”
            “carbon markets remain counterproductive and fundamentally harmful.”

            “Article 6 creates a way for public and private investors to weaponize the Paris agreement for the sake of profits at the cost of local communities and indigenous people’s rights,”
            Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney from the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and an official observer, COP26

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/16/indigenous-climate-activists-cop26-endangers-native-communities?utm_term=6193b25b5dce10a0cad9506b15bf2b9c&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUS_email

            Net Zero by 2050 isn’t just garbage because it’s done by offsets, it’s garbage because 2050 is decades too late to matter. We need to reach actual zero by 2030, and actual negative very soon after, like 2035.

            26 October 2021
            “Net zero 2050” is a deadly scam justifying fossil fuel use way past 2050. It is not to be celebrated.

            by David Spratt
            http://www.climatecodered.org/2021/10/net-zero-2050-is-dealy-scam-justifying.html

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “Net Zero by 2050 isn’t just garbage because it’s done by offsets, it’s garbage because 2050 is decades too late to matter. We need to reach actual zero by 2030, and actual negative very soon after, like 2035”

            A simple statement of the truth we all face. (Pay no attention to ecoidiots inane remarks)


          • Could you ever admit there’s no assurance of net-zero by ANY year, and stop trying to force the fantasy by trashing what’s left of the world’s scenery and safe flyways?

            The math of building “renewables” with other “renewables” (weak building weak vs. strong fossil fuels building weak) is less than a zero sum game. It’s the old entropy/ERoI principle that we easily apply to oil drilling, but oil has far denser energy per weight and volume, so it comes out a winner for awhile. You can’t change the math just because something aims to be against fossil fuels.

            The physical superstructure of things like wind and solar take too much energy in for what they put out (you can’t just build them once and only count electricity output). The main reason people believe otherwise is that fossil fuels are still abundant enough to prop up the illusion. It’s like those songs saying “you don’t know what you have until it’s gone.”

            Quasi-environmentalists get angry at films like “Planet of the Humans” because part of them knows “renewables” are unrealistic with nearly 8 billion people, but they’re in too deep to back down and accept shrinkage of the human experiment.

            People like Michael Shellenberger talk sense on nuclear but go to the dumb side by minimizing climate hazards (to appease a tribe). I come from a “philosophical pessimism” angle where there’s no way out of this mess. People don’t like pessimism, so they yell and pout.

          • ecoquant Says:

            The physical superstructure of things like wind and solar take too much energy in for what they put out (you can’t just build them once and only count electricity output). The main reason people believe otherwise is that fossil fuels are still abundant enough to prop up the illusion. It’s like those songs saying “you don’t know what you have until it’s gone.”

            This is completely incorrect. There have been several cradle to grave life cycle analyses of wind+solar+storage per kWh which were compared with fossil fuels. And wind+solar+storage come out vastly superior. I looked at this in 2016, and updated it recently since a number of the links the post contained were dead.

            Yes, you need to erect the structures, and there may be a need to erect more of them — but not that many — but with fossil not only do you need to build the facilities to find the resources, the devices need to be built to extract them, and then that needs to be transported, and then that needs to be refined, and then you need pipelines or tankers or whatever to bring it to the place of combustion, and then you need to burn it. Worse, you talk entropy and stuff, but the limit on fossil burning for, say, electricity is the Carnot Engine limits (which affect nuclear, by the way, and burning of Hydrogen). So, in the end, something like a minimum of 60% of the energy gotten out of the ground and used to build all the infrastructure to do that, is tossed up the stack.

            The conversion loss for wind and solar is 10%-30%. Energy balance ratios do not measure usable energy, simply total energy produced. The proper point of comparison is not at the output point of the generator but, rather, the sum of points where the electricity is consumed.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            More inane babbling from false premise.

            “Could you ever admit there’s no assurance of net-zero by ANY year, and stop trying to force the fantasy by trashing what’s left of the world’s scenery and safe flyways?”

            Lord love a duck, but this whole comment makes my head spin. No one is “trying to force any fantasy”. We ARE well aware of and concerned about the FACT that there is no assurance of net zero in time to avoid catastrophe with the present level of commitment .

      • J4Zonian Says:

        “If the existing capital and engineering edifice is deconstructed for social and activist reasons, it will take centuries to get it back. Talk about being too late.”

        First of all, what vague nonsense cleverly disguised as pretentious bullshit.
        Second, “centuries”? Complete bullshit all by itself.
        Third, too late is too late. The science shows clearly that we need to reduce GHGs by at least 90% by 2030, and the main thing is not just reaching the endpoint but reducing the area under the curve. Years of observation clearly show that using 2050 as an endpoint is nothing more than yet another delaying tactic, and this one is perfect because it’s being offered by the supposedly less insane party. People are falling for it in droves. By the time it’s completely clear it’s not going to be met, it will be too late, and the vast majority of the public will jump right to despair, thus impairing their ability to build workable guillotines and effectively remove the heads of those who by then will have successfully destroyed civilization and nature.

        August 05, 2019
        The Terrible Truth of Climate Change
        The latest science is alarming, even for climate scientists
        commondreams[DOT]org/views/2019/08/05/terrible-truth-climate-change?cd-origin=rss

        Global warming will happen faster than we think
        December 2018
        Yangyang Xu, Veerabhadran Ramanathan and David G. Victor
        ”…the latest IPCC special report underplays another alarming fact: global warming is accelerating. Three trends — rising emissions, declining air pollution and natural climate cycles — will combine over the next 20 years to make climate change faster and more furious than anticipated.
        there’s a good chance that we could breach the 1.5 °C level by 2030, not by 2040 as projected in the special [1.5°] report (2 °C boundary reached by 2045.) These could happen sooner with quicker shedding of [aerosols]. Adding in natural decadal fluctuations raises the odds of blasting through 1.5 °C by 2025 to at least 10%.
        pnas[DOT]org/content/114/39/10315

        Wind & solar power expansion too slow to stop climate change
 https://www.chalmers.se/en/departments/see/news/Pages/Growth-of-solar-and-wind-power.aspx

        At 4°C of warming, would a billion people survive? What scientists say.
climatecodered[DOT]org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html#more

        If followed by all, the policies of the US, China, Russia, Canada, and Australia would lead to 4-5°C rise
        theguardian[DOT]com/environment/2018/nov/16/climate-change-champions-still-pursuing-devastating-policies-new-study-reveals?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVUy0xODExMTY%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&CMP=GTUS_email

        ”Warming of 4°C or more could reduce the global human population by 80% or 90% and the World Bank reports “there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible”. Prof. Kevin Anderson says a 4°C future “is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable”.[ie, would lead, through tipping points, to even higher temperatures.]

        
Professor Kevin Anderson, previously director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, believes only around 10% of the planet’s population – around half a billion people – will survive if global temperatures rise by 4°C…
The Scotsman reported this on 29 September 2009, at the conclusion of the “4 degrees and beyond” conference,

        webcitation[DOT]org/5ul6K9Jmt?
        news.scotsman[DOT]com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-billions39.5867379.jp

        “For years, policymakers considered 2° C of warming over pre-industrial levels the point at which “dangerous” climate change would begin. …what this really meant was, ‘this is when we think it’ll get bad for rich countries.’” Noam Chomsky

        Climate worst-case scenarios may not go far enough, cloud data shows
        Modelling suggests climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon emissions than thought
        June 2020
        theguardian[DOT]com/environment/2020/jun/13/climate-worst-case-scenarios-clouds-scientists-global-heating?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVUy0yMDA2MTM%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUS_email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS

        Figures have to be taken advisedly, because climate catastrophe is worsening faster and accelerating faster than almost anyone expected. We’ll reach 1.5°C over preindustrial temp. by 2035 at the latest. By then we’ll almost certainly reach a number of tipping points (you remember what those are, right?) like the loss of Greenland’s ice sheet being irreversible.

        What Lies Beneath: Understatement of Existential Risk
        docs[DOT]wixstatic[DOT]com/ugd/148cb0_a0d7c18a1bf64e698a9c8c8f18a42889.pdf


        • J4Zonian wrote on November 17, 2021:

          “Indigenous communities facing an upsurge in land grabs….”

          Wrecking places like this could never be a land grab, of course:

          https://www.hcn.org/issues/43.7/wind-farms-test-efforts-to-cooperate-on-oregons-steens-mountain/steens-mountain-wind-farms

          If it weren’t for the efforts of groups like ONDA and the Audubon Society (hypocrites in other areas), plus the technicality of protecting sage grouse habitat (not scenery), places like Steens Mountain would lose their ancient character.

          People willing to throw those places away on the naive assumption that wind power blight can save the planet are what I call eco-woke. They have ONE issue, climate change, and are so smug that nothing else matters. Part of the smugness is that they want the economy to keep growing, which is what caused AGW in the first place! You don’t cure an alcoholic by serving them “green” liquor.

          Woke Wind Energy: No Justice or Peace for Natural Scenery, Wildlife and Rural People

          This quote sums up these arrogant eco-posers:

          “There are few people in this world I could dislike more than farmers and other country types who see the continuation of their quiet way of life as more important than the loud improvement, advancement, development of their society.” – Charles Mudede (from Seattle)

      • J4Zonian Says:

        We need to reduce inequality, which is driving us rapidly toward fascism. We need to fund the shift in energy, agriculture, forestry, and industry, so need to raise taxes on the rich, based also on the Willie Sutton rule. It’s the only place there’s money, and there’s no other way to solve climate catastrophe. But the rich and the right have made it perfectly clear they won’t allow any of that to happen, and will lie, cheat, steal elections, bribe, bully, extort, lie, buy all the media, dispose of the rule of law (eg. Steven Donziger, Daniel Baker*) lie, kill people, surreptitiously take over countries, violently take over countries… They’ve proven themselves beyond a doubt to be not only willing to do anything, but extremely effective at getting what they want and stopping what they don’t.

        So if we want civilization to survive, they have to be removed from power.

        …along with the system they use to get and keep it—or else removing those particular people is pointless. The system is not the ultimate cause; their emotional illness is, but that’s complex, varied, pervasive, and will take much longer to heal. (We have to start now anyway.)

        Both parties in the US collaborate to keep power and prevent any such shifts, making voting useless—with gerrymandering, voter suppression, selection of candidates by oligarchy, the Lesser Evil Gambit, etc.—making protests a joke, lawsuits a dead end, and any attempt to put up candidates who will accomplish anything ended one way or another. (Kucinich removed by gerrymandering; Sanders removed by relentless media ignoring then ridicule, clear opposition from the supposedly neutral DNC, primary election rigging, and the pure coincidence of all the other Democratic candidates withdrawing all at once to throw the nomination to Biden to stop Sanders. Wellstone, Carnahan… just removed?)

        “Besides, if you poke at a lot of the claims made about certain banks and companies, such as JPMorgan Chase, you’ll find that some of the claims are not justified by the numbers these companies report regularly to their trading partners and to governments.”

        Brilliantly studious vagueness and complete LACK of facts, details, or really, anything, Mr. Evidence Man. Some of the claims? Which of which claims—by whom? So some claims by someone about something aren’t justified by unspecified numbers so all the banks must be innocent of everything? Wow, if I ever get in trouble I hope the legal system works that way for me!
        “Numbers they report”? Well, that settles it. No one ever fudged or obscured or falsified numbers. And since all of us know all the numbers, they couldn’t get away with… what exactly? Legal but immoral backing of corporations and projects that will destroy the biosphere? They all do that all the time. That’s the point.

        “Yes, of course, they still give loans to fossil fuel companies. But they have a point that if they were to withdraw, at present, because there are no alternative technologies, manufacturing would come to a standstill …”
        First of all, ha ha ha ha ha hee hee ha ha hahahahaha! Exaggerate much? Come to a standstill? Yeah, OK.
        Second, no alternative technologies? Ha ha ha ha ha hee hee ha ha hahahahaha! What website is this? Which technologies are faster to build? Who’s got no evidence?

        Putting on that I’m so completely stupid, or crazy, that I would demand civilization be destroyed without any replacement is belied by my comments. Putting on that you are, well… hmmm. The fact that I haven’t laid out in complete detail the plan for all aspects of life in the US for the next century is indicative of what exactly? Impossible expectations, much? If you have nothing better to attack me with than an utterly ridiculous insinuation that maybe there’s no plan or maybe no way, you should stop commenting because that is helpless and pathetic. Mr. Evidence Man.

        “Including to [sic] companies which make EVs as well as ICE vehicles.”
        Clever emotional appeal to something that appeals to all us lefty types, Mr. Evidence Man? That’s the equivalent of bribery. Well, attempted bribery. Or extortion. Stupid attempted bribery or extortion, but still… Too many of your comments are the same: lie, minimizing, exaggeration, vague insinuations, vague distraction, conspiracy theory distraction, ad hominem distraction, straw person distraction, impossible expectations, cherry picking distraction, assertion of absurd conservative ideology, then repeat.

        * theintercept[DOT]com/2021/10/16/daniel-baker-anarchist-capitol-riot/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter

        • ecoquant Says:

          Rainforest Action Network. Yeah, JPMC makes a lot of fossil fuel related loans, and that’s what the groups like Gfanz and Climate Finance Action are trying to change. But their direct investments in fossils are low and non-existent since 1999. And there’s no evidence that, as some activists claim, they specialize in investing in pipelines.

          Worked to get people on XOM’s board. Need to do the same elsewhere.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            White horses are white therefore no horses are gray is the best you do on logic?

            That has to be THE most idiotic cherry picking I’ve ever seen.

          • ecoquant Says:

            Apart from spouting sophistry, what have you done to make progress towards solutions?

          • J4Zonian Says:

            Now with the conservative tu quoque qrapue. This is where I refuse to play along with the right wing personalizing and atomizing of the issue (the standard, most common corporate strategy of projecting onto and scapegoating their victims) and Mr. Evidence doubles down on some fact-free attacky assumptions and conclusions-leaping.

  5. neilrieck Says:

    “Dune 2021” is in the theaters this week so time for a little wisdom from Frank Herbert. This interview on “shifting from non-renewables to renewables” is from 1977:


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: