Tweet

Justin Gillis

18 Feb, 5 tweets, 1 min read

The dramatic situation in Texas was exactly prefigured in 2011, during a similar but less severe cold snap. That disaster involved freeze-ups in gas and power supply, just like this one. It produced a 357-page report on what ought to be done to prevent a recurrence. 1/5

The report specifically advised: "Lawmakers ... should determine whether production shortages during extreme cold weather events can be effectively and economically mitigated..." 2/5

...through the adoption of minimum, uniform standards for the winterization of natural gas production and
processing facilities." Was that done? Current events would suggest: no. 3/5

In fact, my understanding is that the Texas legislature, under control of Republicans, voted down a piece of legislation in 2015 that would have required state agencies, including power regulators, to make plans for climatic disruption. 4/5

If I were a reporter on this story, I would be trying to figure out who screwed up, and why, and who they were taking money from. Full 2011 report is here. 5/5 ferc.gov/sites/default/…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @JustinHGillis

Justin Gillis

@JustinHGillis

19 Feb

@russellgold

Much as I admire @russellgold and many other WSJ news reporters, I am sick of the lies of @WSJopinion. They came out of the gate blaming green energy for Texas problem on basis of no facts. Let's look at some facts, shall we? 1/13

As Arctic blast descended on Texas, power grid peaked late the evening of 2/14, pumping out 68 gigawatts of power. But then equipment started to fail. Generation dropped drastically over course of 2/15, and blackouts began. 2/13

Now, it is true that as the cold front moved over Texas, wind power boomed, peaking at 8 gigawatts. And also true that once the frigid, still air settled on the state, wind power dropped way off. This is exactly what you would expect and plan for. 3/13

Read 13 tweets

Justin Gillis

@JustinHGillis

11 Jan 20

Climate science has a term – “carbon-cycle feedbacks” – that is sufficiently dry as to hide its terrible import. Let me render it into different language in a THREAD. 1/10

Feedbacks in the carbon cycle means: koalas and kangaroos roasting alive in Australia, human beings fleeing into the ocean as the land behind them burns to the water's edge, Californians running in terror ahead of fast-moving fires. 2/10

By dumping carbon pollution into the air, we are messing with the most fundamental biogeochemical cycle on the planet – the one that created us. We are sucking inactive carbon from underground and pumping it into the air, where it becomes part of the active “carbon cycle.” 3/10

Read 10 tweets

Justin Gillis

@JustinHGillis

14 Dec 19

@TheAtlantic

In thinking about the climate crisis, we have all been overlooking the pernicious role of the railroads. New reporting in @TheAtlantic by @yayitsrob begins to shine a spotlight. Will link to piece in a moment. 1/6

@BrownUniversity

But first: here is the report, by students at @BrownUniversity, on which the journalism is partially based. Just digging in myself but seems like essential reading for all climate advocates. 2/6 climatedevlab.brown.edu/uploads/2/8/4/…

@RBrulle

Another crucial piece of the puzzle comes from @RBrulle at Drexel, who has long been doing vital work to understand the networks of influence that blocked climate action. 3/6 onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11…

Read 6 tweets

Justin Gillis

@JustinHGillis

15 Aug 18

@nytopinion

1. In response to my @nytopinion piece with @jamesonmcb advocating a national clean energy standard, I got multiple questions on why it might be more likely to pass Congress than a carbon tax. Herewith, a theory:

2. Fossils are increasingly worried about climate lawsuits, so much they are spending money to gin up an Astroturfy campaign pushing Congress to exempt them from liability. They are willing to trade a low carbon price for relief, but getting few takers among Rs on Hill.

3. Suppose a big court decision goes against them. Juliana vs. U.S. case is most likely, judge has already written hugely favorable opinion toward kid-plaintiffs. Now fossils really worried. They put screws to their bought-off R and D politicians on Hill.

Read 10 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!