Energy States Fight Back Against Bank Threats To Cut Off Oil, Gas, and Coal Companies
Kerry told banks to stop lending and helping out fossil fuel companies. Now, states that rely on those industries are fighting back.
Fifteen state treasurers told Climate Envoy John Kerry to stop pressuring banks and financial institutions to drop the states because if they do then the states will drop them.
The states include Texas, Oklahoma, and coal-heavy West Virginia.
“We are writing today to express our deep concern with recent reports that you, and other members of the Biden Administration, are privately pressuring U.S. banks and financial institutions to refuse to lend or invest in coal, oil, and natural gas companies, as part of a misguided strategy to eliminate the fossil fuel industry in our country,” wrote West Virginia Treasurer Riley Moore.
Moore cited the Politico article, “Kerry to Wall Street: Put your money behind your climate PR.” Sources reportedly told Politico about Kerry’s ambitions:
Kerry has pitched banks on creating a U.S. net-zero banking alliance following the climate commitments from six major Wall Street banks, according to two people familiar with the discussions. Citi, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs all set 2050 net-zero goals and JPMorgan Chase has said its lending would be aligned with the Paris agreement although Kerry and his team are pushing for more specific financial commitments as part of this effort.
A few people on Wall Street confirmed the push without providing details:
A Wall Street banker would not discuss specifics of what Kerry has asked, but confirmed that “the big U.S. banks are obviously discussing with his team directly.”
“It’s trying to figure out collectively whether there’s more that can be said,” the person said. An official at another Wall Street bank said Kerry made similar asks of that financial institution.
Daniel Firger, managing director of Great Circle Capital Advisors, said so far what banks have publicly pledged on climate is “vague,” and Kerry is now leading a “disambiguation” effort.
“No one knows what they mean yet, including Kerry’s team. But this is where the rubber hits the road,” said Firger, who has called for more climate financing from Wall Street. “It’s going to get quite fraught very quickly.”
The article came out in March. It looks like Firger made the correct prediction. Did Kerry think the states would sit back and take it?
“The coal, oil, and natural gas industries in our states are vital to our nation’s economy,” wrote Moore. “These industries provide jobs, health insurance, critical tax revenue, and quality of life to families across our country. As the Obama Administration’s War on Coal demonstrated, reckless attacks on the fossil fuel industry ultimately cut off paychecks for workers and take food off the table for hard-working middle-class families – the very people the Biden Administration claims to champion.”
Oklahoma relies on the natural gas industry. West Virginia without the coal industry?
“Therefore, we intend to put banks and financial institutions on notice of our position, as we urge them not give in to pressure from the Biden Administration to refuse to lend to or invest in coal, oil, and natural gas companies,” Moore continued. “As the chief financial officers of our respective states, we entrust banks and financial institutions with billions of our taxpayers’ dollars.
“It is only logical that we will give significant weight to the fact that an institution engaged in tactics that will harm the people whose money they are handling before entering into or extending any contract.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Those 6 Wall Street banks need to be deprived of electricity immediately.
Maybe the simplest solution is just stop sending electricity to Manhattan and Washington, DC.
I hope all of our LI friends in NYC are in other boroughs.
And to cut off Iran’s electricity.
Stupid Rich Assholes trying to wreck the economy for the rest of us.
How about doing more than putting pressure?
How about starting to revoke state lending charters and ability to do business to firms that discriminate on essential industries?
Sure it would be tricky. Sure such a law would boomerang overtime. So what. Make it sunset in 4 years. Enough to hit them now, and drop it later if a Republican is in the White House.
Temporary punitive measures that cost too much to fight especially because they are punitive temporary sound like a perfect way to send a message
I like what DeSantis is doing to big tech. Whether he wins Round 1 or not. It will cost them money, and they won’t always win.
They will get the message.
I like what DeSantis is doing to big tech.
What DeSantis is doing to Big Tech is prima facie unconstitutional and will not only grant the government disturbing power over private communications, it will get used by activists to go after sites like this one and the rest of the conservative/libertarian digital ecosystem.
Soi-disant conservatives can’t be arsed to learn how the Internet works, and they’re perfectly happy to grant Big Daddy Government ever increasing power so long as the flow of their free shit remains uninterrupted.
We’ll get them next election. — Daniel Ream
Not if Dominion has anything to say about it.
So, basically, you haven’t been paying attention. At all.
Do you even know what ‘prima facie; means?
He used it correctly, so evidently he does. I doubt you do, though.
He misapplied it. It is not a first amendment violation to not allow social media and big tech companies to police speech.
@healthguysfu
No, the government is seeking to control how a private company regulates speech on its site or network. Daniel is right. Good article on the issue is
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gov-desantiss-proposed-laws-penalizing-social-media-companies-for-de-platforming-politicians-is-hilariously-unconstitutional/
Why should they be able to regulate such? They aren’t publishers, therefore they have no such right.
@Yawnz
If they own the platform why wouldn’t they be allowed to apply rules? Fox news chooses what content to run, CNN chooses what content to run. Why the hell is it the government’s business to determine determine what is or isn’t on a platform. That’s pretty basic given corporations have a first amendment right too. Legally I’ve yet to see anyone defending the Florida law. A lot of commentators make the point that it’s likely a PR exercise, DeSantis is expecting it to be struck down in due course.
Is this like when you screamed about net neutrality? What happened to that one from your side?
How are Desantis’ actions prima facie unconstitutional? I’d love to see you argue that case in court. Is it not illegal for brick and mortar establishments to bar people from their establishments for ideological reasons? Last I checked, was there not a man in Florida who attempted to ban Muslims from his buisness and such actions were found to be against the law?
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-gun-shop-owner-declares-store-muslim-free-zone-article-1.2298636
Unless you want to make the case that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all subsequent anti-discrimination legislation is unconstitutional, you seem to be making a point that doesn’t hold water.
@yawnz13
There is already case law which covers a similar topic. I’ve linked in a previous comment but in principle there was a similar case in Florida where papers were forced to publish a rebuttal where they published a critical piece on a politician. That was found to be a breach of the papers first amendment rights.
“Last I checked, was there not a man in Florida who attempted to ban Muslims from his buisness and such actions were found to be against the law?”
Yes, there was not.
Not only was he not “found to be [violating] the law,” the judge tossed out the case against him prima facie.
Companies that rely on freedom of speech for their existence cannot select which Florida politicians to silence. That is the Constitutional principle behind the new Florida laws, so they survive any court challenges.
Federalism lifts it’s head from a long slumber….
The absurd level of norm breaking by the Biden WH, the d/ progressive controlled HoR, the ideological federal employees ECT is finally resulting in a long overdue push back.
That pesky 10th amendment will be fully awake soon.
Wake up people use Alinsky’s rules against them.
Like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Her biggest enemy – you guessed it – the GOP!
Her biggest enemy are sane people. She is a lunatic.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts, @mark311, on equally freaking lunatic lefties like AOC and Omar (the entire rabidly antisemitic “Squad”). They are the MTG’s of the Dems . . . that even Nancy Pelosi not too long ago dismissed as “just four votes” and says their districts can be won by a glass of water with a “D” after their name. Or do you think only the right has a “problems” with one (or a handful) of elected reps? Do tell, we are all waiting.
Well I think to adequately answer that you’d have to cite what you think they have done or said that’s insane?
In Marjorie Taylor Greene case she is a QAnon advocate which firmly puts her in the lunatic bracket IMO
“deep concern with recent reports that you, and other members of the Biden Administration, are privately pressuring U.S. banks and financial institutions to refuse to lend or invest in coal, oil, and natural gas companies”
=
“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name”
The first time I read that passage, about 1967, I thought, ” the world is going to have to change a lot for that to happen.”
It has. We defeated communism in the USSR and now are implementing it here piecemeal.
Here’s a practical question to ask Kerry: What specific plans does he have to provide the electricity necessary to replace that generated by fossil fuel facilities? Specifically, where is the electricty going to come from when up to 95% of solar and wind power is not available for days at a time, such as during long winter cold snaps such as that which happened to Texas in February? What commitments does Kerry have on paper from utilities, energy consortiums and equipment manufacturers – not just verbal or handshake agreements, but enforceable contracts? And generating plants of any kind have a really, really long lead time – many years are needed for federal, state and local environmental reviews, approval by state and local energy boards, and manufacture/install/test. Even if a “carbon copy” (no pun intended) of an existing plant is used, it’s still usually a bare minimum of 5-7 years to get a new generating plant up and on-line.
Oh – and at the same time, Kerry can tell us about his plans to source all of the electricity needed for the millions and millions of electric cars and trucks he plans to put on the road – which must be done at the same as the above-noted generating expansion.
I’d also love to know how he’s going to replace long-haul trucks with battery powered ones. If cars are now getting 205 miles (250 miles less 80% fast charging max) before requiring a charge (typical wait time at a fast charger 1 hour) one would have to assume providing trucks with the kind of range they get now will require some kind of miraculous new technology.
“Here’s a practical question to ask Kerry: What specific plans does he have to provide the electricity necessary to replace that generated by fossil fuel facilities?”
He does not. Never did. But he will have electricity. He is rich and is of the elite Mandarin class. He will be fine. As for the rest of you peasants…. well, sometimes, though it’s regrettable, sacrifices must be made.
Better yet ask him why he’s pushing the climate change bullshit. They can’t even explain that Fred Flintstones car was the cause of melting during the ice ages, no way they can believably say the world is warming up.
Indeed, there won’t be an electric car in our future until somebody figures out a way to mimic our present 350+ miles on a tank with a brief investment of about fifteen minutes to give us another 350+ miles. Kerry is a fool.
.
@DShornet
Most people don’t need 350 miles
The next generation of EV will give around 250mile range and an 80% charge on a fast charge grid in something like 18 minutes. So it’s getting there.
That will be great for you, @mark311! How much faster can you drive those 50,000 miles a year in the UK when you have to sit at recharging stations for only 18 minutes! Gee, you can probably cram in an extra 50K miles each and every year without even noticing! Keep us posted on that.
@FuzzySlippers
You know full well that I’ve already stated very clearly I don’t think EV is in a state where I would find useful (not yet at least). Given that your implication previously has been that I’m dishonest the fact you are being dishonest to try and prove your point is pretty ironic.
Its pretty bizarre that you have latched onto the 50k comment as if it proves anything.
You don’t seem to have anything substantive to say on the subject so you can keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself thanks. You seem rather prone to that.
@mark311, you wrote, “Its pretty bizarre that you have latched onto the 50k comment as if it proves anything.”
It proves you are a liar. Just like your lie about commenting here “for ages” is a lie — unless you truly think less than six months is “ages.” You are a liar. That’s worth noting. Over and over again.
@fuzzy slippers
my claim I do 50k proves I’m a liar eh. That’s your assertion based on nothing. You have no evidence or even inference that it’s a lie. Fundamentally your assertion is nothing more than you trying to smear me because you’ve shown to be shallow , inconsistent and illogical person. Indeed I’m not really sure that you can demonstrate much intellect at all but more importantly you don’t demonstrate any honesty with your thoughts. You consistently ad hominem me, and fail to make any reasonable arguments. Your pretty pathetic.
mark,
Do this if you would. Calculate the number of auto in Britain. Rough number is fine. Now find the electricity requirements for charging the average EV. Now multiply those numbers.
Now find the current daily max power generation for Britain’s grid. Subtract from that the average daily electric consumption.
Now how much excess capacity remains in the grid? Certainly not enough to meet the requirements for the EV mandate.
How much new power generation will be required to support the EV mandate? Which sources of generation will be used to meet that?
If not solar, wind, hydro or geothermal then EV will be running on energy production from gas, coal or nuclear.
If the point of EV is ‘cleaner environment’ then it’s not going to happen with current tech. We have yet to discuss the impact of mining for the elements needed for batteries nor a disposal plan for these hazardous batteries. How about transmission lines to push this power from the generation sites?
In densely populated metro areas with short commute and minimal driving EV make some sense. Outside those areas they don’t. The mileage isn’t there. Nor is towing or hauling capacity in EV. Both of those drastically reduce EV mileage.
The capacity of the grid isnt considered to be a significant issue since most users of EV will be charging at different times. From what ive read circa 2-6 charges are needed per month for an average user. That load is well within capacity of the grid. Don’t forget of course that as the use of EVS grows there will be more data to illustrate the issue. It may well be prudent to plan for extra capacity but the principle issue is getting the grid power to locations where charging is happening that is a significant issue.
Its much easier to make grid level energy efficient, and that’s improving all the time.
Sure mining for the batteries is an issue, but relative to oil and gas an improvement. Oil and gas have a significantly larger impact as I understand it and getting new oil in particular is increasingly looking at more remote locations and thus less eco friendly and more expensive.
Dont forget to calculate in the power purchased from France’s nuclear power stations because the “stiff upper lip” crowd didn’t want to build nuclear plants on their island.
@bhwms
You realise that the connection runs both ways don’t you? also it means that instead of having to turn on carbon intensive power plants it can be transferred from France etc. This means the grid is more flexible and helps iron out peaks and troughs in use and supply. It also makes sense from a price of electricity perspective if its cheaper to use French power why not. They have had to make the expense of building large numbers of nuclear plants and the UK hasn’t. That’s just making best use of resources.
Stiff upper lip has nothing to do with it, many in the UK (rightly or wrongly) think nuclear is bad value for money. The strike price for electricity from nuclear does tend to be higher, takes ages to build and has storage issues. I happen to be pro nuclear but its not a one sided arguement.
mark,
Trust me do the math. If every vehicle was swapped to EV overnight the grid would collapse the next day. The power generation capacity doesn’t exist to support it today.
The math will show you a very good estimate of how much additional power generation capacity will be required. What forms will that take?
Once you know the megawatts required to meet the shortfall then look at the various options. That’s a lot of wind turbines and solar panels and dams. How much real estate is needed for them? What’s their reliability? Will additional conventional coal or Nat gas plants be required to supplement them?
What might be feasible for an Island nation of relatively small size is simply not relevant to a continental size nation like the US.
If the goal is EV for environmental purposes rather than an agenda of limiting and controlling consumer choices by mandate then some degree of willingness to explore what the future requirements throughout the lifecycle of EV will be and a recognition of the current inability to meet those increased power consumption requirements is warranted.
Refusal to acknowledge these basic facts by EV enthusiasts seems to indicate less environmental commitment than lust for control and the ability to order the economic choices of others.
“The capacity of the grid isnt considered to be a significant issue since most users of EV will be charging at different times.”
Sure. Just like the capacity of a town’s internet network isn’t considered to be a significant issue, since most users of streaming services will be watching videos at different times.
And then reality lands, like Maxwell’s Silver Hammer.
@commochief
Well the maths doesn’t really support you. Certainly not in the UK’s case.
According to the national grid the estimated increase will be 10% over current requirements assuming that there is a switch overnight from combustion to EV. It goes on to say that actually the UK uses less electricity than it used to so there is more spare capacity.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/5-myths-about-electric-vehicles-busted
I don’t know if the US is the same but from the UK perspective what you claim regarding the grid isn’t correct.
mark,
The article does not present any numbers on the power requirements for a 100% EV conversion. It makes a statement that ‘we think it would only increase demand by 10%’ without offering any evidence of how they reach that conclusion.
Since you won’t research let me help you.
Britain was slightly more than 40 million cars. Multiply that by the 7kwh to overnight charge and that’s a whole lot of new demand.
Presumably you will be meeting this demand domestically so as to minimize the environmental footprint and fully internalize the costs rather than asking another nation to bear the costs?
If not why? If nuclear power purchased from France is totes cool with environmentalists then where are British nuclear plants?
Unless of course this whole EV movement is not about the environmental issues but rather issuing virtuous edicts to others about how they must order their lives and restrict their choices to appease someone else.
@commochief
Your assertion is that EVs would be plugged in every night and that the power required would be for the full period of time. That’s just not correct. The requirement to plug in would be intermittent at best. Its estimated that an average user would need something like 2 charges per month from what I’ve read (more in the US). So the power distribution would be over a much larger period of time. Additionally if the power is being used overnight the demand is much lower. So you’d have to show that the power use would pose an issue from a much lower baseline.
The article I linked sets out the issues very nicely. I appreciate that it did t go into the nuts and bolts of the calculation but I was unable to find a link that did. I note that neither have you. Trust me your maths is wrong.
With regard to nuclear the UK is building it but has never adopted at the scale France has. Price is a significant reason for that, it’s very expensive compared with other solutions. Sure there are many arguments both pro and con. Not every society makes the same choices.
mark,
If you have better estimates than the ones I provided by all means use those to perform the calculations. Don’t rely upon my opinion or someone else’s opinion that isn’t supported by facts; showing the calculations.
The 7kwh is for a ‘fast’ home charge between 6-8 hours. A slower charge at 3.6kwh takes longer. Both figures are for the average EV available to achieve a 100 mile driving distance.
Obviously they would almost never be plugged in at one time. Though one question I have is how do you propose to prevent this?
Assign days and hours based on the tag number? Ok, but what’s the enforcement mechanism? What would prevent me from changing on a day or time that is outside my assigned slot?
Nothing. Unless of course the utility company is going to monitor and report my power use to some as yet unnamed enforcement agency or will the utility company simply ration the amount of power available, similar to an ISP throttling available bandwidth once I hit a specific level of usage.
EV can work for some. No one should deliberately make it harder for EV to succeed. Conversely, those people who don’t like EV and their limitations should not be nudged or coerced into using them.
Let the EV proponents do their thing and live with and pay for their choice. Don’t drag the rest of us into your lifestyle choice.
@commochief
With the greatest respect but when did a technological challenge become to difficult for Americans ? You haven’t really answered in a substantive way why it isn’t possible all you’ve really said is that it needs more power. You’d have to establish that EVs combined with the extra over power would not be better from an emissions perspective. The fundamental issue is that EV tech has yet to reach maturity whereas the combustion engine is fully matured. There are only marginal gains to be made. On that basis it’s pretty clear that EV have a significant advantage over the combustion engine. This is from an emissions perspective and from a vehicle perspective. I have friends with Tesla’s and instant torque is freakin awesome.
@mark311, you ask when tech advances became too difficult for Americans. Read what CommoChief wrote. Read this statement. Which logical fallacy are you skating on here?
I don’t think anyone here rejects clean energy or fewer carbon emissions or whatever because I don’t think anyone here cares about that at all. We reject the purposeful pretense that “green” power is ready or even close to capable of meeting our nation’s energy needs (including low cost to the consumer). When it is, we will all switch happily . . . because it works and it’s cheap (not because of some fantasy saving the planet lunacy). It is not now ready or even close to ready for prime time. Eliminating fossil fuels without a viable alternative is just plain stupid.
Presumably, your myriad Tesla-loving friends aren’t driving the 50k miles a year that you do. I suspect that their thrill with their “instant torque” will be diminished by having to wait hours to charge their car and get back on the road. Right now, electric vehicles are a novelty, a virtue signal, a chest-thumping sign of leftist claptrappery. EV owners go back to gas, or they keep their EV but drive their gas-powered car when it matters (not puttering around the elite areas grinning at other EV drivers who also have a gas-powered vehicle for actual driving and not posturing). Sure, there are some people who have and love them, but they live in areas where they don’t have to drive far, can charge their car overnight (with stored energy mostly from fossil fuels, btw), and who feel like Gaia-loving martyrs for enduring the inconvenience of EVs.
Make an EV that does exactly what my gas-powered car does, at the same cost, with the same fueling times, cost, and convenience, and I’ll get one. That is decades away. Decimating fossil fuels now because maybe, one day, green energy will work is, I say again, stupid.
@fuzzy slippers
What logical fallacy? It’s your assertion not mine. My point is that EV is an immature technology with plenty of potential and indeed that America has a history of innovating difficult technical issues. I’m not clear how that could be a fallacy.
Regarding EV it’s a market trend , they are increasingly popular. As for green tech at grid level again there is a trend for increased use that again is a strong trend which is why the tariffs involved have gradually decreased in the UK. That’s just the reality.
As for your assertion that EV is not your cuppa tea personally that’s fine but broadening out as somehow being unsuitable for all isn’t justified
You miss the point. EVs might make sense in metropolitan areas because of the air pollution in those areas, but in the wider open country they make no sense at all. In many rural areas, it’s common to put 30,000 miles on a car in a year just because it’s necessary to get where one needs to go, and if a worker has to drive a lot to get his job done, 60,000 miles isn’t unheard of. And then there are the problems that CommoChief mentioned.
So yes, in some applications, EVs might make sense due to short distances but they won’t work in most others.
.
No absolutely its not for everyone at this stage, but as the tech improves that segment of people who it isnt suitable for will reduce.
mark,
And if EV prove reliable and cost efficient and do so while standing upon their own merits without direct or indirect subsidies they can compete and win v combustion engine.
However, since that situation does not exist today nor does it appear that the EV proponents wish to fund the infrastructure build out to support EV ….that day will remain in the distance.
@commochief
Well it depends on the goal. In normal circumstances that would be fine you could let market forces do there thing. However given climate change the emphasis is to reduce emissions are fast as possible. Therefore it’s justified to subsidise a solution that will significantly reduce carbon emissions.
People think that electric motors are going to replace the internal combustion engine. Wrong, wrong, wrong – if anything, electric cars would be a mere stepping stone. Their ultimate plan is to get you out of cars altogether, restricting your mobility and keeping you a prisoner in one of the UN-approved “smart cities.” You will live on a modern-day plantation with all the millions of other serfs – you will own nothing…and you will be “happy,” eating fake meat, bugs, tofu burgers, and water recycled from poop. That is our overlords’ vision for our future.
Meanwhile, they will continue their jet-setting lifestyle, dining on kobe beef (no insect flour or “plant-based” fakery for them) and top-shelf liquor, enjoying heat when it’s cold and air conditioning when it’s hot. They will get the finest of medical care (including life-extending treatments and other therapies not officially sanctioned). Meanwhile the rest of us will be told to put up with the “inevitable” aches and pains of growing old, and then taken to the glue factory (or soylent green processing facility) when we hit threescore and ten, because we’ve outlived our usefulness, and “for the greater good of society” it’s only fair that the resources used to sustain us instead be allocated to the deserving young who have their entire lives ahead of them.
That, my friends, is where we are headed with JoeBama V 2.0. That is what was supposed to happen when Hillary was elected in 2016. She was supposed to be the 3rd term of Obama, but Trump screwed up their plans. That’s why they put together the most extensive voter fraud organization in US history, to steal the election so Pedo Joe could replace Hillary as puppet in their 16-year plan to destroy America, and it’s why the swamp creatures in DC went along with the election f*ckery and certified a fraudulent election. It’s also why the audits in AZ and other places are so important. If we just ignore the blatant election fraud, all our elections from henceforth will be as meaningful as Soviet “elections” back in the day, when there was only one candidate on the ballot, getting 97% of the vote.
Correction people know the combustion engine will be replaced. Its a matter of law in some countries and public sentiment is such that they can’t see a future for it. Private interests follow where public sentiment leads because that’s how the market works. Which is why you see a rapid proliferation in EV options, you’ll a lot more over the next few years.
And charge them all how?
.
At home, not a particularly difficult issue in the domestic sense at the present size of market. Clearly as the market grows gas stations/car parks etc will have to be able to cater for a lot more vehicles.
Mark, as has been clearly explained, there isn’t enough capacity in the electrical grid to tolerate the load. The required increase in capacity will need to be supplied by fossil fuel power plants that the environmentalists reject. Add the needed transmission and distribution capacity that would be needed and it’s obvious it won’t work for general use.
Present gasoline stations can run a dozen or more vehicles through for refueling in ten minutes or less. Commercial charging stations can’t do that, and home charging won’t work with the electrical system capacity in a residential application.
What is so hard to understand about this?
.
@DShornet
I responded to that pointing out that the charging cycles of most EV uses means that its spread out over a long period of time.
As I’ve also said the network for fast charging is still in need of improvement, I’ve already acknowledged that. Sufficient investment will overcome that issue, sure there is a lot to do but that’s over a reasonable period of time.
In the domestic setting it can charge overnight so it doesn’t need to be fast charging.
Hard to understand, I’ve responded – unless you can show that I’m wrong in my arguments this isn’t a case of misunderstanding its a case of showing that the argument presented has flaws. In that regard you have all your work ahead of you.
Public sentiment? references please.
Orange County (CA) poll found 45% would be in favor of a ban, but they love their cars. They also oppose nuclear power. So a strong minority, but a minority nonetheless, thinks getting rid of the internal combustion engine is a good thing, but refuses to consider the one carbon-free power generation technology available today..
Sure
https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/support-european-cities-only-selling-emissions-free-cars-after-2030
In terms of the poll you cite that’s pretty impressive given the car culture.. Nuclear has issues everyone acknowledges this. I personally am in favour but its not a a one sided argument.
“Correction people know the combustion engine will be replaced. Its a matter of law in some countries”
Well, then it must be true. Look how well that worked for drugs, guns, and porno.
Maybe by providing the complete quote you might avoid being incorrect.
In the early 1900’s there were a number of cars that did not use diesel or gasoline. Have you every looked into why they did not replace the cars powered by the combustion engine?
“Its a matter of law in some countries and public sentiment is such that they can’t see a future for it. Private interests follow where public sentiment leads because that’s how the market works.”
So, the market works because laws are passed saying what can be in the market?
Is the fascism or communism?
Answer: it is not what we the people want.
@captee
technology moves on, in the 1900s combustion became dominant now EV will it’s as simple as that.
No you misunderstand what I’m saying with regard to private interests. I specifically said that private interests follow what public sentiment wants. The public will buy products they want. EVs are becoming more and more popular. That’s just a fact.
Governments pass laws all the time to influence the markets thats hardly a fascist or communist thing. Governments regulate quality of water supplies for example or whether a company can have a monopoly. That’s to protect the common good even though of course companies don’t want regulation of any kind that might interfere in profitability.
You broke the environmentalist code!
Oil and gas will still get funded when Kerry meddles against it. It will just get more expensive…making it cost aversive, this will make electric look cheap by comparison until electricity is nowhere to be found and everyone will be SOL (except the rich like another person said).
“Texas in February?”
That’s was primarily driven by loss of supply in gas. If the gas supply had worked all would have been well, the Texan electrical grid wasn’t resilient enough to deal with the level of cold. Wind was never expected to be in use at the time forming only a small part of the energy generation. When things went wrong Texan energy generation and a whole failed because it wasn’t designed to deal with those cold temperatures.
“Where is power going to come from” no idea where your stats come from but solar and wind to to synch quite well. The peaks and trough of there respective power outputs balance out to an extent and bear in mind that in a connected grid (unlike Texas) power can be drawn from areas which is generating. I’m not clear wind and solar are the whole answer I’d add in nuclear and hydro too but a number of countries already successfully use wind and solar to provide a significant % of power generation.
Electric vehicle grid
Of course it needs investment,
Electric lorry tech
Already exists, Daimler have lorries with a 250mile range. If you are talking genuine long haul then no that hasn’t been developed yet so in the meantime it’s logistics for relatively short range journeys. Again there is huge investment into it required and there is a lot from private interests, Tesla being a prime example.
I was in Texas in February. I know what I’m talking about.
Were you in Texas, Mark? Did your pipes freeze? Did your food go bad? Were you unable to get any news (cable modems, televisions, etc. require power…)?
And your idea about charging being spread out in time is nonsense. Everyone gets home from work in the afternoon/evening and promptly plug in their cars to recharge – all within the same 8-10 hour window. With home recharging, it’s essential to start the process ASAP, since if all you’ve got is 110VAC (the standard electrical outlet for most homes – by the way, who pays to put charging posts in apartment parking lots?) it takes about 12 hours to get roughly 40 miles worth of charge.
(And don’t spout off about upgrading to 220VAC or a special charger, unless you’re going to pay for it.)
“(And don’t spout off about upgrading to 220VAC or a special charger, unless you’re going to pay for it.)”
But people will want it…. because their is no alternative, you see.
“I was in Texas in February. I know what I’m talking about.”
And yet you haven’t addressed any of the substantive issues merely waves your hand and asserted you know what you are talking about
“charging being spread out in time”
The assumption you are making is that most users would require charging every day. That’s typically not true. From what I’ve read average car use in the States might mean circa 2-6 times per month. Additionally from what I’ve read the increase in load in the UK has been estimated to be around 10% assuming a complete over night transition to EV.
“12 hours to get roughly 40 miles worth of charge.”
Its dependant on the charger and the battery capacity so times will vary considerably.
“That’s was primarily driven by loss of supply in gas.”
This is absolutely false. It was driven by the loss of wind power and the inability of alternative generating capability to fill the resulting loss in load during a dramatic increase for demand.
It’s a an equation: Load must be equal to or greater than demand. When load dropped below demand, due to the wind turbines going offline, load was below demand, and a situation called load rejection developed which made it extremely difficult to bring other load from gas, oil, and nuclear into the load mix because all this power has to be synchronized in both load and phase to bring online. If a generator cannot meat the load demand, it simply trips off line, so the lost load to meet demand has to brought on line simultaneously in a controlled fashion, to include phase synchronization.
Please stop passing that laughably incorrect falsehood that the problem was in the loss of gas generation which was not even on line when the outages occurred. Please stop spreading the falsehood. .
What. Now you are just sounding silly.
Its a matter of public record that the gas power supply failed at scale. They then tried to provide extra power from other sources which also failed. For the same reason that is none of the systems were designed to cope with the temperatures recorded.
Stop bullshitting BSR. Wildly claiming that it’s winds fault even when it wasn’t even expected to be providing power at the time of the cold weather incident is patently false.
Yes gas was supposed to be providing the main amount of grid level power at the time. It gets worse though the powers that be in Texas knew that their were issues with the gas supplies and still lied about it being winds fault. By far the greatest loss of power was from gas. Don’t give me that bullshit about load, wind power wasnt even expected to be providing much in the way of load.
Check your facts. You can do better than that.
Check your facts. You have no clue what you are talking about and have been reading things from people who have no clue what they are talking about, or out rightly lying. The facts are exactly as I have described them.
@BSR
I absolutely know what I’m talking about its a matter of record what happened.
https://interestingengineering.com/what-caused-the-texas-electricity-blackout
Its really not a matter for debate, gas provides the majority of power to Texas especially during winter. The gas failed because of the cold, other power supplies couldn’t assist because of the cold. Therefore the Texan energy grid was not able to cope because of the cold.
So once again check your facts because they are way of in this instance. No credible source supports your position.
You read and believe the most idiotic stuff. Here are some quotes from your article that are amongst the dumbest things I have ever read:
“The cold temperatures knocked out the diesel engines that power these pumps. Also, natural gas pipelines used to transfer the gas froze”
The freezing point of natural gas is minus 296.7° degrees. Natural gas lines and stores are extremely dry. They have virtually no water in them. Even if one gas line from one storage tank to a generator had an inordinate amount of water in it for some reason, the entire system would simply not fail. Natural gas is used for heating and energy generation all over the world in a lot colder places than in Texas. The temperatures in Texas also would have no effect whatsoever on diesel engines or generators. Diesel engines are regularly used in artic conditions. I do not know what to be amazed by more, the sheer stupidity of these statements or that you, a seemingly intelligent person, could possibly believe them.
And then the article states this: “Coal plants couldn’t operate because the coal piles froze and became stuck to the ground.”
What???? You mean they have old men and small children with shovels to move the coal from the coal piles to the furnaces, and they could not break apart the coal because there was some frozen water in it? They do not use mechanic earth movers to move coal from piles to furnace in Texas like every other place in the world? How on earth do they move coal from pile to furnace in places like Finland, Canada, Russia? What is there magical system do they have for keeping coal plants running during winter?
If you want to sound smart on something, don’t link to utter stupidity.
You have a real habit of linking to stupid uniformed crap to tray and backup you point. Do you really read this AND believe it? If so, it’s only because you want to believe and not because you put any mental power in analyzing it.
@BSR
Did you actually understand the article at all?
You seem to have missed the entire point of the episode. The equipment transporting the gas etc wasn’t designed for the cold. The diesel pumps weren’t designed for those temperatures. You can’t get around that. Can you explain why gas power was shut down? You have dismissed the article based on your own ignorance. No one was talking about frozen gas but the kit that transports it.
The gas lines did get water in them , and it froze that’s what happened. That’s what’s been confirmed by ERCOT itself. You don’t get to pretend it didn’t happen
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/2/17/22287130/texas-natural-gas-production-power-outages-frozen
As I’ve said it’s a matter of public record what happened. You’ve yet to provide any evidence to support your position. All you’ve done is assert I’m wrong even though it’s recorded by every one what actually happened
You seem to dismiss the articles and science I cite based on nothing. You really haven’t demonstrated a strong scientific knowledge at all.
@BSR
You refer to Finland etc as cold countries having no issues well that’s because they have systems that are designed for the cold. Texas didn’t. Its really as simple as that. I don’t get why you don’t understand that.
Jean Fraud Kerry has been a lying, clueless pompous windbag on the national scene for 50 years now. He’s a political plague of locusts–of the lying variety.
He’s the biggest gigolo in America.
“Can no one rid me of this troublesome traitor?”
Alinsky’s rules are for bad moral character. If you use them you support the left, whether you imagine it or not.
While I might prefer a bout that was to be determined under a normal boxing rules if I find myself in a street fight I am sure as hell not going to allow my opponent or bystanders to tell me my opponent can eye gauge and no holds barred but I can’t reciprocate.
If someone walks up and slaps you then kick them in the jimmy, put a knee to their now lowered head, put them on the ground and lay the boots to them till their teeth come out.
That will end their enthusiasm for dirty fighting. You might not even have to repeat the performance. Anything else and you are inviting more of the same.
You sound like you’re at a country club, having a twelfth drink with Boehner.
They’re just getting started, then, eh?
Tell me, do you stick your little pinky finger out when you drink? You need to wake up and join the real world.
And who, pray tell, is John Kerry? A has-been B-lister.
If it needs to be illegal make it illegal. If it is legal banks should have no say other than ROI calculations.
Sell your Exxon stock. An environmental hedge fund with .02% of the stock got 2 board members today and may get an additional 2 yet.
The intend to force exxon to move away from fossil fuels.
I never had any exxon stock. I will not buy any. I know nothing about the stock market and this advice is free and worth every penny.
That’s like moving chicken away from Kentucky Fried Chicken.
I spit my coffee out at this one… XD
An excerpt from a letter from the CEO of Innovex Downhole Solutions CEO Adam Anderson to NorthFace. NorthFace refused to customize their jackets.
At this point, you may wonder why I am directing this letter to you, the CEO of one of the world’s largest apparel companies. We recently contacted North Face to inquire about buying jackets with the Innovex logo for all of our employees as Christmas presents. We viewed the North Face as a high-quality brand that our employees would value and cherish for years to come. Unfortunately, we were informed that North Face would not sell us jackets because we were an oil and gas services company.
The irony in this statement is your jackets are made from the oil and gas products the hardworking men and women of our industry produce. I think this stance by your company is counterproductive virtue signaling, and I would appreciate you re-considering this stance. We should be celebrating the benefits of what oil and gas do to enable the outdoors lifestyle your brands embrace. Without oil and gas, there would be no market for nor ability to create the products your company sells.
Read the entire letter here: https://ipanm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/North-Face-Oil-and-Gas-Response.pdf
I can’t wait until I can piss on John Kerry’s grave.
In world first, New Zealand passes climate change law that targets financial firms
https://sites.law.berkeley.edu/thenetwork/2021/04/16/in-world-first-new-zealand-passes-climate-change-law-that-targets-financial-firms/
New Zealand is set to become the first country in the world to mandate that financial firms report on the environmental impact and exposure of their investments. From 2023, companies must report on how their lending and investments effect ongoing efforts to reduce carbon emissions. They must also divulge the extent to which their investments are exposed to climate-related risks and opportunities. According to James Shaw, New Zealand’s Minister of Climate Change and Co-leader of the Green Party, “This law will bring climate risks and resilience into the heart of financial and business decision making.”
more at link
Good for them.
NZ has low total population as well as low population density. What works there won’t work everywhere.
.
I’m surprised he isn’t asking them to cut off firearms manufacturers too. Banks were heading that way before Trump was elected.
I’m sure they are slowly working on that behind closed doors. The current ATF nominee wants to ban all AR-15 rifles. I’m sure he has a list of other firearms he wants to ban as well.
“When pressed, Chipman said his only frame of reference was an ATF document that labeled any semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and is above the caliber .22 an “assault” rifle.
This is the same person who defended Waco after all — you know, where the government wantonly shot up Americans and burned children alive.”
Banks had already cut off dealers.
The SJWs are playing a game they can’t win. Totally dependent on the levers of psychological pressure (MSM/FAANG/Govt + Academic priesthood). No tools of hard physical pressure.
Red state Governors should make them feel the pain.
Food, energy and transport assets in Red States face state regulation. Would be a shame if there were safety issues that shut down the Colonial pipeline for a couple months. Oil and gas producers could continue pumping and selling to grateful international export customers instead of Blue States.
Mississippi River ports and bridges could also be discovered to be unsafe and require an immediate shutdown. Dams, aquaducts and pumping stations in AZ/NV could have safety stand downs, too.
That’s before we get to the state pension funds that could shift to support the attractive returns available in energy once the NY money pulls out…
What. So your suggesting that the government force a private company to shut down to inflict pain on another state for no reason other than the wind is blowing in the direction of doing something about climate change? Basically your argument is to extort other states into going with your totally unjustified view.
It’s called tit for tat. What the blue states are doing (see NY’s crap on banking and guns) is basically extortion.
It might not be right, but don’t get on your high horse about it unless you’re going to bring down the fire on the blue states who started it.
It’s quite different to pass a law to incentivise or decentivise the behaviour of a company (s) Vs going out of your way to fuck over another state without any meaningful reason.
You might want to look up the meaning of extortion I’m not clear you understand what it means
“What. So your suggesting that the government force a private company to shut down…”
Has not the local, state and federal governments not been engaged in this activity for COVID? So, clearly, a precedent has been set that governments may close companies, or force upon them what ever conditions and restrictions desired.
This is one of the many reasons I have strenuously objected to the government’s response to COVID and how it deprives people of their liberty. Now, the government has shown it may regulate every aspect of your business, even if it can operate at all. It hence is not longer really your business. It’s the government. You just get to pretend to own it.
I’m not clear of the comparison. What was being advocated was deliberately fucking over other states as a revenge tactic Vs the Covid response which was to try and save as many lives as possible in a public health crisis.
No rationale allows anyone to diminish the God given rights of other human beings. You do not get to destroy people’s lives and rob them of their property and freedom just because you are ignorant and afraid.
@BSR
That doesn’t make any sense at all.
It’s perfectly reasonable in a crisis to impose extra measures that infringe on liberties. Sure it needs to be thought about and carefully considered but the reality is without those measures many more would die. There is significant evidence of this from the way lockdowns impacted upon case numbers.
When we talk about rights , what about the right to life. Seems like you consider that a non issue.
Seems that the gov’t pressuring banks on who they can lend to/provide accounts for is a violation of the First Amendment as long as the activities are legal. And providing incentive is “pressuring”.
(It should, in my opinion, also be a Fourth Amendment issue to even have banking be open to the gov’t, except with a warrant. Lots of folks here may disagree.)
Banks are government chartered. They exist at the behest and under the regulation of the government. Being as such, one can infer they have no natural right to exist. If a government choses to change the manner in which they are regulated, then that seems to be within their power. However, the federal government reserves for itself the power to regulate interstate commerce, which they define very broadly, and so may be able to negate any state regulation is they so desire.
Yeah maybe.
Instead I would propose that these 15 States create a non discrimination compact and invite other States to join.
Compact to do what? Basically impose the following requirements:
1. Financial Services – no viewpoint discrimination in other words financial institutions can’t refuse to lend or provide banking services for any person or corporate entity that is engaged in lawful activities. So no refusing services to firearms dealers or manufacturers.
Penalty is loss of State business. No bidding on State bonds, no state pension Management, no payroll Services ECT.
2. Social media – same plus they must provide a clear and complete list of words and phrases that will result in a ban or suspension. Additionally they must agree to moderate all unlawful content or content prohibited internally without respect to source.
Penalty is State chooses alternative Social Media platforms to interact with constituents. Parlor v Twitter ECT. The alternative platforms would then benefit from the network effects of those constituents joining and utilizing their platform.
Both financial firms and social media would be free to not comply but the States would simply exercise their options as to choice of vendors for those services. No compulsion, just persuasion.
IMO a.group of 15 to 26 States with r governors and legislature taking these steps would result in much more consumer choice at the end of the day. If not then at least those industries and citizens in those States would have a reliable option for financial services and social media that wouldn’t be pulled out from under them based upon woke corporate whims.