When you think "Joe Biden's climate policy," think of the 13-year-old Ethiopian girl who will have to keep spending 8 hours a day collecting dirty water for lack of reliable, low-cost fossil fuel electricity.
"The first thing Aysha picks up when she opens her eyes...is...her collection of large plastic gasoline canisters. The 13-year-old Ethiopian straps them to her camel...and begins the four-plus-hour walk to the nearest river. The water there is dirty and brown and unsanitary..."
"President Biden’s administration...is beginning to enact policies that will deny Aysha and the countless girls like her the opportunity to move from bleak, backbreaking destitution to a self-actualized life of equality and opportunity."
"Billions like Aysha in Africa, Southeast Asia, South America...live with little to no access to electricity. Electricity is the one of the simplest solutions to improved health, economic opportunity, education, nutrition, and comfort...especially for women and girls."
"Yet among President Biden’s 'Climate Day' executive orders is a unilateral ban on 'international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy...no...foreign aid funds to developing nations seeking affordable, reliable energy to lift their citizens out of poverty."
"For Aysha, that funding could have offered clean running water flowing right to her home, a safer way to cook without inhaling the toxic fumes from burning wood, kerosene or even dung, the opportunity to go to school like her brother..."
"If President Biden’s administration is serious about fighting poverty and leading the world in pursuit of equity, it should start by reversing the ban on fossil fuel financing for the developing world."
The House Democrats' "CLEAN Future" Act, by forcing us to depend mostly on unreliable wind and solar, would destroy our standard of living--and global emissions would still rise.
It should be rejected in favor of an *aggressive nuclear decriminalization policy*.
THREAD
The only practical way to lower global CO2 emissions is to develop low-carbon sources that are cheaper than fossil fuels. If the US, which causes <1/6 of global emissions, mandates unaffordable low-carbon sources, we'll hurt ourselves--while global CO2 emissions continue rising.
The world, especially the developing world, overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can’t come close. That’s why China and India have committed to building hundreds of new coal plants.
Embarrassing: this chart in a supposed "fact-check" of @RepDanCrenshaw by @PolitiFact falsely portrays wind subsidies as unremarkable using the bogus and dishonest metric of total subsidies, not the proper metric of per-unit subsidies.
🧵
The proper way to measure energy subsidies is: How much taxpayer money does the government pay per unit of energy? Every per-unit analysis using data from the US Energy Information Administration is clear: solar and wind get *dozens of times* more subsidies than fossil fuels.
A comprehensive analysis of federal subsidies per unit of electricity generated from 2010-2019 found that solar got 211 times more subsidies than natural gas and wind got 48 times more subsidies than natural gas.
Joe Biden's energy plan would shift us from energy production that is low-cost, high-reliability, and *America-centered* to energy production that is high-cost, low-reliability, and *China-centered*.
This would destroy, not create, millions of well-paying American jobs.
THREAD
Joe Biden says that his policies to eliminate US CO2 emissions through a largely solar- and wind-based energy system will create millions of well-paying "green jobs"--far more than will be destroyed in the fossil fuel industry.
This is impossible.
A largely solar-and wind-based energy system will necessarily destroy far more well-paying US jobs than it creates because the "green jobs" will be 1) far less productive, 2) largely in China, and 3) cause job losses in other industries via skyrocketing energy prices.
In TX, a spike in demand during cold temps led to devastating blackouts.
In AB, a spike in demand during *far colder temps* led to... very little disruption.
Why? AB has a reliable, resilient grid with 43% coal and 49% gas.
THREAD
The media want you to believe that TX's failure to handle spiking demand during cold temps proves that a fossil fueled grid can't handle such a challenge. They don't want you to know about Alberta, CA--where a fossil fueled grid handled a far bigger challenge with relative ease.
Alberta was far colder than TX last week.
Between Feb 14th and 17th, while Dallas, TX temperatures averaged between 10 and 25 degrees F, Calgary, AB temperatures AVERAGED between -13 and 16 degrees F!
Alberta's 43% coal, 49% gas grid performed spectacularly.
Q: Is the solution to TX's reliability problems to join the national grid and be regulated by the Federal government?
A: No, because the Federal government is pursuing policies that are even more anti-reliability than TX's. The solution is pro-reliability policies in TX.
THREAD
Many say the problem causing the massive TX blackouts is TX's insistence on being an independent grid, depriving it of ample power from local states as well as wise regulation from the Federal government. But joining today's Federal grid would make TX's problems far worse.
Texas is perfectly capable of having an ultra-reliable grid on its own. It is the size of a fairly-large country. Any weather challenges it has faced or will face have been easily dealt with by grids around the world using reliable and resilient nuclear, coal, and gas plants.
"Who is responsible for providing adequate capacity in Texas during extreme conditions? The short answer is no one."
"[ERCOT doesn't] ensure that the resources can deliver power under adverse conditions, they don’t require that generators have secured firm fuel supplies, and they don’t make sure the resources will be ready and available to operate."