Connect with us



Recently, Republicans received some favorable climate-related coverage. Utah’s 3rd District Congressman John Curtis announced the formation of a Conservative Climate Caucus. It came with a roster of roughly 60 Congresspeople, none of them particularly well known names. While they are light on content, they have sufficient info on their site to make a few early assessments. It’s possible that their actual actions will pleasantly surprise me, but the start is inauspicious.

First, though, it’s worth looking at some prior art in conservative climate actions.

There have been a few Republicans at the climate change table in the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus for years, and they include big names like Romney, Murkowski, Graham, Rubio, and Gaetz, all of whom are missing from the new Caucus (although it’s easy to understand why Gaetz wasn’t invited). And until the 2018 midterms, they were actually fully bi-partisan as their policy, with newcomers required to join in matched pairs.

Their solution is a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend, along with reduced regulation. It’s a good policy, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough and it would have needed to start in 1990. We need governments to make tough choices, we need carrots to draw first-movers, and we need sticks to beat recalcitrant industries with. A carbon fee that’s low and capped at a too-low rate is exactly one policy lever. The carbon fee and dividend is bog-standard conservative economic policy, outside of Libertarian ideologues. Place a price on negative externalities and let the market take care of the rest.

The Climate Leadership Council is another legacy group focused on climate action. It was founded by senior Republican luminaries including former Secretaries of State James A. Baker and George P. Shultz, and Rob Walton, former Chairman of Walmart. Its focus is a revenue-neutral climate fee and dividend as well, along with a side helping of deregulation. Since its very conservative founding, it’s branched out to be a bi-partisan effort as well, and gained approval of Nobel Laureates in economics and corporate sponsorship. That corporate involvement is telling, by the way. There are 8 big fossil fuel-oriented emitters in the set, all of which have been doing quite well at greenwashing and notably less well at actually eliminating fossil fuels. When BHP, ExxonMobil, and BP are bellying up to the bar, the reasonable question of greenwashing arises. But the policies include a border carbon adjustment as well, and there are worse policy sets. They would start their fee at $40 per ton per the report and increase it above inflation until it hit $80, which is too low, but still better than nothing.

So many conservative policy strategists and economists favor carbon taxes. But watch what happens when sensible administrations implement this conservative Pigovian tax:

  • In Australia, center-left Labor brought a carbon tax in. The right-wing Liberals — with the support of the Oz version of the Heritage Foundation and coal baron money — derided it utterly, fought an election on it, and when they won, canceled it.
  • In Canada, the centrist Liberals brought in a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend to tax payers. The increasingly right-wing Conservatives derided it, fought two elections against it, thankfully losing both, and in a recent policy convention, refused to include climate change and action in their policies.

It’s like the Affordable Care Act, a Republican-created and tested policy that the conservative Obama Administration brought in. The Republicans immediately derided it as ObamaCare and fought tooth and nail against it for years. Consistency and so-called conservative parties like the Republicans don’t go hand in hand anymore.

So the new Republican-only Conservative Climate Caucus exists in a context. It doesn’t have big names associated with it. It’s inherently partisan. It’s entered a place where two pre-existing, well structured, well thought-through actually conservative caucuses and political action groups with senior Republican engagement already exist. And it doesn’t have a coherent policy it stands behind.

But it does have a set of ‘beliefs’, and they’ve already tipped their hand about what they are really all about. Let’s look at what they believe, point by point.

“The climate is changing, and decades of a global industrial era that has brought prosperity to the world has also contributed to that change.”

“Contributed to.” Right. The science is clear that we would be experiencing very slow cooling in a stable climate, but instead are seeing radically rapid heating, over 100 times faster than the heating which melted the continental glaciers 20-25 thousand years ago.

So yes, this is a belief. It’s not the reality. But that’s also not a policy indicator, so we can somewhat ignore it.

“Private sector innovation, American resources, and R&D investment have resulted in lower emissions and affordable energy, placing the United States as the global leader in reducing emissions.”

“Global leader.” Right. Germany is off 40% in GHG emissions since 1990. US emissions are about the same as they were in 1990, after having risen through 2010 or so. You have to cherrypick your timeframes to pretend the US is a global leader in emissions reduction when its per capita emissions are still among the highest in the world and its historical emissions are a full 25% of the global historical total.

This is a point of faith on the right. They really seem to believe this is true. So yes, more unsupported belief, not reality. And also not policy, although it’s a pointer to policy.

“Climate change is a global issue and China is the greatest immediate obstacle to reducing world emissions. Solutions should reduce global emissions and not just be “feel good” policies.”

China is not the greatest immediate obstacle in the real world. It is on track to hitting its (admittedly weak) Paris Agreement targets nine years early. It built as much wind and solar in 2020 as the rest of the world combined, 72 GW of wind and 48 GW of solar. It has 38,000 km of high-speed electrified passenger rail in operation, enough to circle the equator. It has well over 400,000 electric buses on the roads of its cities when no other country has 1,000 in operation. It buys 50% of all electric vehicles. It builds virtually all of the solar panels used globally. Chinese firms are two of the top five global wind turbine manufacturers.

China remained signatory to the Paris Agreement and acted when Republicans took the US out of the Agreement and regressed. For the past four years, the largest single obstacle to climate action was the United States. This is Sinophobic posturing, and indicative of policy that will not be useful. It sells well, and Biden does it too, but it remains harmful, finger-pointing nonsense.

And yet again, not policy, just a pointer to where policy might go.

“Practical and exportable answers can be found in innovation embraced by the free market. Americans and the rest of the world want access to cheaper, reliable, and cleaner energy.”

“Innovation” is a right-wing mantra as well. What it translates to is research funding, funding for the fossil fuel industries for failed carbon capture technologies, and yet more billions for nuclear energy. Innovation has already been embraced by the free market. It’s called wind and solar power. And it’s delivering cheaper, reliable, and actually clean — not ‘cleaner’ — energy globally today.

Germany and Denmark are running well over 40% on renewable electricity and their grid reliability metrics are vastly better than the US’. The average German and Dane see less than 15 minutes of power interruptions annually.

No one in the US sees anything approaching that level of reliability.

But this suggests policies. They extrapolate to:

These are no climate-friendly policies. These are fossil fuel industry friendly policies.

“With innovative technologies, fossil fuels can and should be a major part of the global solution.”

No, they won’t. This is #hopium from the fossil fuel industry, the Republican’s primary sponsors. The fossil fuel industry has to dwindle to a petrochemicals industry providing industrial feedstocks, perhaps 20% of a barrel, probably less.

This is indicative of energy and climate policies which are not about the greatest good for the greatest number, but the greatest good for the smallest number, specifically fossil fuel oligarchs like the Kochs.

“Reducing emissions is the goal, not reducing energy choices.”

Eliminating emissions is the goal, and some energy choices do not make that at all possible. Physics makes that very clear. More meat for the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the climate here.

So what this all means is that if — big if — Republicans actually come up with a climate policy at the federal level based on the new Caucus, it will be pretty much what Trump did.

  • Point fingers at other countries
  • Give lots of money and love to the fossil fuel industry
  • Pretend that the US is a leader, as opposed to a laggard

There is no intersection visible between the sane, empirically based policies of the Democratic Party, which is actually focused on the greatest good for the greatest number, and the policies of the Republican Party at this point.

Organize now to keep them out of power in 2022 and 2024.

Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.



Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading


Ford Mustang Mach-E to lose EV tax credit




Ford Mustang Mach-E to lose EV tax credit

If you are thinking about buying Ford’s electric Mustang Mach-E, you may want to do so before the end of the year. Ford expects the Mach-E will no longer qualify for the federal EV tax credit.

Ford Mach-E will no longer qualify for the EV tax credit

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is due for drastric changes at the end of the year that will affect which EVs will qualify for the tax credit.

Starting on January 1, more restrictions will be put into place. EVs with battery components from a “foreign entity of concern,” including China will lose a portion of the tax credit.

In 2025, the rules will get even tighter. The changes are designed to promote manufacturing in the US while building up a reliable EV supply chain network.

Ford expects to be among several automakers with EVs losing access. Tesla has already said its Model 3 RWD and Long Range will lose $3,750, starting January 1. Meanwhile, it will still qualify for the other $3,750.

In a bulletin sent to dealers (via CarsDirect), Ford said it expects the changes to impact the Mustang Mach-E. Although Ford is “awaiting finalized requirements,” given what we know, “it is unlikely that any Mustang Mach-Es will qualify” beginning the first of the year.

2023 Ford Mustang Mach-E (Source: Ford)

The company didn’t explain why the Mach-E will no longer qualify for the EV tax credit, but it’s likely due to the CATL-supplied LFP batteries.

Qualified customers are still eligible for a $3,750 credit, “making this an excellent motivator to purchase before the end of the year,” Ford added.

2023 Ford Mustang Mach-E (Source: Ford)

Shoppers can still take advantage of the full $7,500 tax credit through leasing. Meanwhile, Ford didn’t indicate the Lightning would be impacted by the changes.

Ford’s electric truck had its best sales month ever in November. All F-150 Lightning trims, except the Platinum version, qualify for up to $7,500 in savings. The Platinum model is excluded as it exceeds the IRA’s $80K cutoff.

Ready to make a move and save on Ford’s electric vehicles while you still can? You can use our links below to find great deals at a dealership near you today.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading


The US’s first utility-scale offshore wind farm delivers its first power




The US's first utility-scale offshore wind farm delivers its first power

New York’s South Fork Wind has become the first utility-scale offshore wind farm to generate power in the US.

The first operational wind turbine at South Fork Wind sent clean power to Long Island today. The project has completed the installation of two turbines around 35 miles off Montauk, with all 12 SG 11-200 DD Siemens Gamesa turbines expected to be installed by early 2024. 

The energy produced is being sold to the Long Island Power Authority under the terms of a 20-year agreement.

Stephanie McClellan, executive director at offshore wind nonprofit Turn Forward, said:

The generation of power from South Fork Wind  is an incredible moment in the American clean energy story and for the Long Island communities that will benefit from this project for decades to come.

The 130-megawatt (MW) South Fork Wind will be the US’s first completed utility-scale wind farm in federal waters.

Danish renewables giant Ørsted is jointly developing the offshore wind farm with Boston-based energy provider Eversource. South Fork Wind’s first offshore wind turbine foundation was installed at the end of June, and its first US-built offshore substation was completed at the end of July.

South Fork Wind will produce enough clean energy to power 70,000 homes in New York. It will deliver clean energy directly to the electric grid in East Hampton via a single transmission line installed in March.

It will eliminate up to 6 million tons of carbon emissions, or the equivalent of taking 60,000 cars off the road annually over a 25-year period. 

Read more: The US’s largest offshore wind farm just got the green light

Photo: South Fork Wind

To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading


U.S. crude drops below $70 per barrel, gas prices fall to 11-month low




U.S. crude drops below  per barrel, gas prices fall to 11-month low

Gas prices at a Shell gas station in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2023.

Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

U.S. crude declined nearly 4% on Wednesday with retail gasoline prices hitting the lowest point since January ahead of the holiday shopping and travel season.

The West Texas Intermediate contract for January fell $2.80, or 3.87%, to $69.52 a barrel, while the Brent contract for February declined $2.68, or 3.47%, to $74.52 a barrel.

U.S. crude and the global benchmark have hit their lowest levels since June, despite efforts by OPEC+ to boost prices by promising to slash supply in the first quarter of 2024.

Prices at the pump in the U.S., meanwhile, have followed oil prices lower to hit $3.22 a gallon on average as of Wednesday, the lowest price since Jan. 3, according to AAA.

Oil prices have been on a steep downward trajectory from September highs as nations outside OPEC+, particularly the U.S., pump crude at breakneck clip and worries grow about the Chinese economy.

Moody’s on Tuesday downgraded its outlook for China’s government credit raging to negative from stable.

U.S. crude inventories fell by 4.6 million barrels for the week ending Dec. 1 and gasoline supplied to the market increased by 260,000 barrels per day, according to the Energy Information Agency.

Falling inventories and rising gasoline deliveries implies higher demand, which would typically boost oil prices. Pessimism about the economic outlook in China, however, appeared to be weighing heavier on crude prices.

Oil traders have also been skeptical OPEC+, which includes OPEC members and its allies like Russia, will deliver on supply cuts of 2.2 million bpd in the first quarter next year.

Several OPEC+ members announced the voluntary cuts last week after the group failed to reach a unanimous agreement on production targets.

Saudi Energy Minister Price Abdulaziz bin Salman and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak sough to assure the market this week that they could extend or even deepen the promised cuts.

Tamas Varga, an analyst with PVM Oil Associates, said those reassurances have “fallen to deaf ears.”

Continue Reading