The energy crisis in Europe is a wake-up call that US must ensure a smooth transition to decarbonization (i.e. reasonably priced energy). Efforts by some to kill oil/gas industry will result in price spikes to levels that risk losing voter support for the energy transition. 1/
A perfect storm of factors has caused UK gas prices to jump 4x this year, from $6 to $24/mmbtu. For reference, US gas is $5 after doubling since the spring. UK electricity providers are going bankrupt, industrial plants are shutting down, and this spike may cause a recession. 2/
It will be easy to place blame on government policies if consumer energy prices spike. Opponents will scream from the rooftops that decarbonization actions caused the price rise, whether true or not. 3/
In the US, a (growing) majority of voters support efforts to address climate change. A majority also express reluctance to pay for these policies. If voters believe climate policy is causing a spike in energy prices, support for those actions will fall. 4/
While some advocate trying to destroy the fossil fuel industry as quickly as possible, the reality is oil and gas consumption will be high this decade in any decarbonization scenario. Clean energy is growing quickly but off a very low base. 5/
It’s impossible to build enough EVs, solar, batteries, transmission, wind, etc fast enough to materially change fossil fuel use in the near term. For instance, autos can last 20 years and EVs have only 2% market share today. Changing the fleet on the road takes a long time. 6/
Higher fossil fuel prices will spur a faster shift to renewable sources, all else equal, as they become economically competitive in more uses/geographies. But very high oil/gas prices risk a voter backlash against decarbonization policies, which are vital to a cleaner future. 7/
Like it or not, oil and gas will be widely used by Americans, and the world, this decade. The transition to clean energy will be eased if it's smooth: oil and gas prices stay at reasonable levels. Attempts to kill the industry are counterproductive to the broader effort. 8/8

• • •

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

Keep Current with John Arnold

John Arnold Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

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

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JohnArnoldFndtn

10 Aug
The median tenure for superintendent of the 10 largest public school systems is just 4 months. The average tenure is 2 years 9 months.

The median tenure for CEO of the 10 largest corporations is >12 years. The average is >16 years.
It is impossible to effectively run a complex organization with this level of turnover. High performing organizations find a great leader & insulate her from from the fray. The politics of local schools creates the opposite: excessive focus on short term noise & constant change.
Tenure of superintendents of the 10 largest school districts:

Broward 1 week
Palm Beach 1 month
LA 1 month
Chicago 2 months
Houston 2 months
NYC 5 months
Hillsborough 17 months
Clark 3 yrs
Orange 9 yrs
Miami 13 yrs
Read 5 tweets
1 Jul
The fundamental problem with Congress is that every well-organized interest group holds an effective veto on legislation. Thus the only substantive domestic proposals that have a chance of surviving the sausage making in this Congress are new spending bills without a pay-for. 1/6
Inevitably, any reform to improve a system has opposition. Unable & unwilling to take on special interest groups that object, Congress finds it expedient to throw money at a problem rather than improve existing system. If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. 2/6
Health care is prime example. We could get much better outcomes with same (enormous) expenditure, but interest groups veto any reform. Without any perceived constraint on deficits, it's easier for Congress to increase health spending rather than improve the existing system. 3/6
Read 6 tweets
19 Apr
There’s been seismic shift in the Houston energy industry of late. A year ago, there was a lot of defending the oil & gas sector and denouncing renewables. Anecdotally, about 75% of the talk was O&G and 25% clean energy. It feels like those numbers have reversed.
1/4
Three-quarters of discussions now are about wind, solar, batteries, transmission, lithium, cleantech, etc. Even those who are not ideological believers are taking the cues from the financial markets, which have no interest in oil production growth anymore. 2/4
The markets are rewarding those in a growth industry (zero carbon energy) vs one in secular decline. Plus, the capital available to O&G has dried up. Every energy PE firm in town is raising $ for clean energy (good luck pitching an oil fund to a university endowment now). 3/4
Read 4 tweets
18 Feb
Texas failed to insure against the consequences of a 100 year weather event but insurance costs $. And Texans hate any increase in taxes, fees, or service costs, even when the $ is used to prevent property damage and deaths. The story of drainage in Houston is a good example. 1/6
After major flooding in '98, '01, '06, '08, and '09 with significant property damage including 3 events with fatalities, Houston voters were asked to approve an impervious surface fee in 2010 to fund new drainage (average cost of $5/month per property). 2/6
Flooding was highly salient. This wasn't to fix a problem that happened every 20 or 50 or 100 years. It was to address an issue that happens every 2 or 3 years. Still, the vote was highly contentious, only passing 53-47%, & dominated mayoral politics for the following decade. 3/6
Read 6 tweets
17 Feb
3 reports on philanthropy this week:
(1) Total giving increased 2%, from $450 to $459 bln. -@blackbaud
(2) DAF accounts increased from $112 to $142 bln over 2 yrs. -@AEI
(3) Fidelity DAF distributed $9.1 bln last year.

Combined, these studies show the best & worst of DAFs. 1/
On the + side, DAFs are very useful vehicles for donors. They allow ease of execution, low costs, & tax efficiency that promotes giving. For donors looking to contribute appreciated assets or bunch donations into a single year to get the tax benefit, these are great vehicles. 2/
However, the data shows growing problem of asset accumulation within philanthropic vehicles without a commensurate increase in giving to working charities. DAF assets should not be growing at a faster absolute dollar pace (15 bln/yr) than total $ giving to nonprofits (9 bln). 3/
Read 9 tweets
4 Jan
NFL has hard salary cap. NBA sets a max player contract. Euro soccer limits the $ a team can lose. Pro team owners recognize folly of competing in zero-sum industry with huge external pressure to spend. College athletics, though, continues to engage in self-destructing acts. 1/
Recently fired head football coaches (+ assistants) are owed buyouts of $24 mil @ Texas and $22-30 mil @ Auburn. That public universities are paying coaching staffs 8-figure payments NOT TO WORK during Covid-era budget cuts in academic programs is wrong on so many levels. 2/
Boosters and alums get caught in the obsession, thinking their school should be above average. If Boise State can do it… If Stanford…If Oklahoma… But by definition, half of teams will be below avg. The mindset becomes “we just need a different coach and better facilities…” 3/
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

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!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(