Innovation instead of hyperbole marks the GOP response to “climate change”
Gen. IV Nuclear and Chemical Desalination are better options than shrieks of “we are going to die in 12 years”
My son and I often have dinner together and watch FNC’s “The Five.”
This week, one discussion that caught my attention was the response to panelist Juan Williams’ assertion that the Republicans do not have any response to climate change. When fellow pundit Greg Gutfeld responded, “Gen. IV Nuclear,” Williams went on as if he never heard the remark.
It was an utterly fascinating moment of cognitive dissonance.
One of President Donald Trump’s greatest strengths is that he is no ideologue. While Trump may not want to send the United Nations billions in “green energy dollars,” the business tycoon has enough sense to look for innovative solutions to the “climate change” hysteria that millions of voters are clamoring about.
He simply wants those solutions to actually help the American economy instead of hinder it, and Republicans are proceeding along Trump-inspired lines.
While they are not buying the “climate change” hyperbole, the GOP is selling the idea that science and technology may offer some interesting profit opportunities that pair nicely with a cleaner environment.
Whereas Democratic plans focus on government regulation of the oil and gas industries, Republican plans tend to center on technological innovations to combat global warming. Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) called his plan, which focuses on solutions like investment in carbon-capture technology, the “Green Real Deal.” Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) has called for a “new Manhattan Project” for clean energy, proposing large-scale investment in carbon capture, electric vehicles, and green buildings. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) has said he would support legislation to combat climate change with “energy innovation.”
Indeed, innovation is a recurring theme so far in Republicans’ approaches to climate policy. The conservative lawmakers know their audience: Different types of messaging on climate change are more convincing for conservatives than those that typically appeal to left-leaning voters. Research shows that messaging that focuses on the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists doesn’t persuade conservatives to back climate action, but focusing on free-market solutions to climate change does.
Legal Insurrection readers may recall that one of the plans put forward in the “new Manhattan Project” was development of “Walk-Away-Safe” Generation IV nuclear power. Investing in new and enhanced nuclear energy technologies may be shrewd move.
Washington state is likely to become the fourth in the nation to legislate 100% renewable energy deadlines.
The Washington State Senate approved and sent to Governor Jay Inslee a 100% clean-power bill that forms the cornerstone of the governor’s efforts to address climate change and his 2020 presidential election campaign.
The Senate, in a 29-20 vote, approved Senate Bill 5116 to require all electric utilities to eliminate coal-fired electricity by December 31, 2025, and to make all of their retail electricity sales free of greenhouse gas emissions by January 1, 2030.
The state only has one existing coal-fired plant, but utilities still import coal-fired power from other states.
Once signed by Inslee, the new measure will make Washington the fourth state, behind California, Hawaii and New Mexico, to pass legislation mandating 100% emissions-free power.
Another innovation that is on the horizon that could massively impact the fiscal climate of this country is the recent development of chemical desalination technologies, which are more effective and cost efficient than traditional methods.
A group of researchers from Columbia University have developed a process designed to purify industrial hypersaline brines. They call it Temperature Swing Solvent Extraction (TSSE).
TSSE can desalinate extremely salty brine up to seven times as salty as the ocean. For comparison, the current methods can only handle brine twice as salty. Unlike other approaches that use reverse osmosis or distillation, TSSE has found success with using a solvent. Solvent extraction is commonly used during chemical engineering.
“I thought solvent extraction could be a good alternative desalination approach that is radically different from conventional methods because it is membrane-less and not based on evaporative phase-change,” says Ngai Yin Yip, assistant professor of earth and environmental engineering at Columbia, in a press statement. “Our results show that TSSE could be a disruptive technology—it’s effective, efficient, scalable, and can be sustainably powered.”
The ability for humans to convert ocean water to potable water could solve countless problems across the globe, such as droughts and limited drinking water. The water could be used to irrigate farmlands, as well as expand forest and wetlands. Finally, the “climate change” alarmists will be consoled that it even offers the opportunity to lower ocean levels.
Hopefully, the Democrats will continue to focus on the Kabuki Theater production that is the Mueller report and not notice all the deregulation and effective policy approaches being spearheaded by President Trump. I am looking forward to another night of drinking liberal tears in November 2020.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Why we aren’t building thorium reactors anyway is beyond me. We have known how to make pollution free electric power for years and have refined the technology to the point it is incredibly safe.
But those peaceniks and overly emotional environmentalists with their absurd panic buttons over nothing have stopped development of the most stable carbon free source of power for us all to enjoy.
But, we, who are open to this power are the villains. Because, you know, we can think for ourselves.
In this case the Left wants the power to pull the plug on power generation. The earth it the beneficiary of the biggest nuke power plant around… Mr. Sun. Not very portable though.
And then there is all that He-3 on the moon the Chinese could “own” if they get their mitts on it.
The end result of going green is a markedly reduced population.. and I guess they have a “solution’ for that also.
Now I’m confused. What good is the HE-3 for in power generation?
Other commercial uses yes, but power generation?
There appear to be significant metallurgical and chemical engineering problems to solve. I haven’t read of any clear show-stoppers, but these problems aren’t trivial. As always with infant technologies, I assume the predictions about cost and schedules are too optimistic.
But the hardest problem will be to de-program the ignorant masses who have been dumbed down for generations, who violently resist learning anything about radiation, but are certain it the most dangerous thing in the universe.
I think places like Washington state are leading the way to a solution. When a good fraction of the population is shivering in the dark, they’ll become more rational about nuclear power.
If you haven’t read the late Petr Beckman’s The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, try to track it down and read it. It’s a little bit dated but not much; almost all of it is just as valid now as it was when he wrote it more than 40 years ago.
Thanks. I wasn’t familiar with the book, but from the summaries I found on the web it looks excellent. I should probably have a copy handy for the conversations with the hysterical folks. Except those conversations are best avoided, because facts don’t matter…
Here’s a link to a PDF of the book: http://users.gobigwest.com/rosegate/files/Covs/c132-Nuclear.pdf
Well Juan Williams was never the brightest buffalo in the herd.
This all sounds like outright surrender.
Slightly less ruinous programs to deal with a problem which simply doesn’t exist will still be ruinous.
The Leftist campaign for dominance consists largely of stampeding us all to fix imaginary crises—ideally, crises we can’t even detect, so that we have to rely on good Leftoids to tell us that we haven’t succeeded yet. Imaginary “microaggressions”, imaginary “privilege”, imaginary “toxic” this and that, endless “hate crimes”, ad dreary infinitum. And now something you can’t even measure but which we have to fix RIGHT NOW! But if you measure it yourself you’ll see that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, no crash program to address it is needed, or can even be justified.
According to the data compiled by Roy Spencer 2018 was colder than 2017. And in 2019, here in Ontario, I am not enjoying March’s weather in May, even as the CBC absurdly claims it is warming here twice as fast as elsewhere. My money is on Theodor Landscheidt.
At least it’s better than last year, when we had January’s weather in May.
It is May 13, 2019. I am in central Virginia. I have a fire going in my wood stove. South Canada, indeed.
Williams went on as if he never heard the remark.
————————
Yeah, that’s his signature move.
That’s what talking parrots do.
Jay Inslee just did an ad about fixing the climate while riding an electric scooter.
not a Segway, but a little scooter like we had as kids that you push with one foot
https://twitter.com/JayInslee/status/1127387870421852161
We can’t trust the GOP for anything. At least not any more than any other pack of backstabbing rats.
The GOP is done. It’s either Trump or the Tea Party, or both.
Personally? I prefer Nilssonation.
Viz: Coconut
In other words, conservatives respond well to ideas that make sense without any reference to “climate change”, even if they’re marketed as a solution to that probably-fictional problem.
What makes a tea liberal?
Fixed, thanks, Milhouse! 🙂
In the evening of Nov 8, 2016, liberals tears dripped onto their tea bags creating liberal tea…
Lots and lots of tea
I believe it’s steeped when one inserts an “r” between said tea’s “a” and its “s.”
Can someone explain this claim: “Finally, the “climate change” alarmists will be consoled that it even offers the opportunity to lower ocean levels.”
If we decide the oceans are too full, and we are willing and able to put the extra water somewhere else (where?) to lower the oceans, why take the salt out of the water first?
It might be more effective for all the believers to simply dip a large Starbucks cup of water out of the nearest ocean — and hold it for the rest of their lives.
Why would any sensible person try to stop climate change? We’ve not either the power nor the wisdom to solve false problems.
NASA just reevaluated the placement of some of the sensors that had placed in concrete parking lots, next to AC units etc.
Amazingly they found out there was an effect on the sensors that gave higher numbers than when placed in locations without that infringement.
And Cali is possibly going to be carbon neutral by the summer if the wind really starts blowing and PG&E shuts down power lines like they’ve promised so as to avoid fires.
Meanwhile with only 12 years left to live I’m going all in and having a Coke.
Personally, I think the power company’s decision to cut off power during strong winds is genius.
Power Company – Sorry for those fires during last wind season. We weren’t allowed to cut large enough firebreaks around our power lines.
Public – We’re suing you for a bazillion dollars!
Power Company – In order to keep costs under control, and since we’re not allowed to cut larger firebreaks, we’re turning off the power during high winds.
Public – Hey, wait a minute.
“”Meanwhile with only 12 years left to live I’m going all in and having a Coke.””
At my age, if they promised me 12 more years, I’d be drinking champagne.
First of all,, you have to define climate change. There are two type of climate. Global and local. Now, human beings have little of no effect upon the global climate. most of that is driven by cosmological factors, most notably solar activity. And, human activity has NO effect upon those. To think otherwise is nothing more than hubris. Local climatology is another story. Human activity, especially human habitation can have profound effect upon conditions in a small area. Urbanization is a good example. Human habitation in the bowl of Los Angeles caused such climatic conditions as smog, drought, high temperatures and other weather conditions. The same is true of New York, Boston, Atlanta, Dallas, etc. And, these are the areas in which most of the man-made climate change believers grew up or live. These people look around and see “climate change” created by concentrated human habitation. Though it is a local phenomenon, they believe that it is the same the world over. And, they are just plain wrong.
Now, there is nothing wrong with nuclear power. Except that it is more expensive that fossil fuel generation and has similar placement problems to hydroelectric power generation. It is fine as part of a power generation program. But, it is only PART of the program.
Desalinization is useful in certain areas of the world. However, in the US, all it would accomplish would be to expand already oversized urban development along the coasts. For 100 years, sociologists have documented the fact that human beings develop significant behavioral problems when living in a high density environment. Environmental conditions, which naturally limit the size and density of human habitats, should be considered. Building in flood plains rarely ends well. Building where wave or rain erosion is a fact of life, rarely ends well.
People can either start living smart, on the planet, or we can continue to patch the problems that we cause. Excessive urbanization is a big one.
Beyond the issues you mention, high population densities drive more mutations and rapid spread of infectious diseases. If we do not control our numbers, nature will do so, brutally.
Also, we are approaching a crisis with antibiotics.