Friends & Fellow Citizens Podcast: Sowing Seeds of Sustainability in a Polarized Climate

The fossil fuel divestment movement is spreading across college campuses. Most recently, students at the University of Washington staged a sit-in to urge the university administration to divest from its fossil fuel holdings. Last year, Harvard University – which has the largest fossil fuel endowment in the country – announced plans to divest from the industry after its student body protested. 

Divesting from fossil fuels sounds like a great idea for a young, climate-conscious activist to get behind. That is until you get into the details and consequences. 

The fossil field divestment movement, and those who support it, have no real plan for the aggressive clean energy transition they propose. Not only do fossil fuels still make up 60% of American energy, but a new report from the American Petroleum Institute shows that the industry supports nearly 11 million jobs and contributes more than 7% of the U.S. GDP.  

Advocating for the dissolution of the entire industry over the next few decades would also mean dissolving economic opportunity and quality of life for more than 330 million Americans. 

Even President Joe Biden acknowledged that fossil fuels aren’t going away anytime soon during his 2023 State of the Union address. Instead of pushing for unrealistic divestment that would deeply hurt local communities and our nation’s energy security, we should prioritize producing energy from fossil fuels in the cleanest, most environmentally responsible way possible while simultaneously ramping up renewable energy production. 

This is personal for me. My home state of Texas leads the nation in generating fossil fuel revenue, with more than $450 billion for the state’s economy. I grew up in Houston, where the energy industry is the lifeblood of the city and its citizens, regardless of whether they are directly employed by the industry or not. Widespread divestment from the fossil fuel industry would ruin Houston economically, as well as countless other communities across the country. 

More surprisingly, the second-largest oil and gas economy in the country is no other than California. The oil and gas industry generates $217.1 billion for the state’s economy, which would be hard to guess from the renewables-over-all attitude that California projects. This is just further proof that divesting from fossil fuels is a huge, unrealistic mistake – even for bright blue states. 

Perhaps even more importantly, shunning this industry here in the United States wouldn’t result in lower global greenhouse gas emissions. 

The American oil and gas industry produces energy with some of the highest environmental standards and close to the least carbon intensity in the world. If our major institutions divest from fossil fuels and handicap the industry, fossil fuels won’t go away. Other countries will simply produce fossil fuel energy in a dirtier way. 

This is not to say that clean energy – or an energy transition as a concept – is not important. We should be prioritizing clean energy sources, but we should be doing so with a realistic mindset. We need an all-of-the-above approach that balances reliability, affordability, abundance, and yes – cleanliness. 

The underlying conclusion here is that we cannot afford to sacrifice energy security and economic prosperity for climate activism without a follow-through plan. Clean energy should continue to be a priority in the coming years, but not at the expense of prosperity and American economic dominance.  

Read the original here.

The Irish government is considering a “dairy cow massacre” to reduce emissions and meet climate targets. If that sounds insane, it’s because it is. Even conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair and entrepreneur Elon Musk agreed on Twitter, which sparked much discussion – and outrage – across Europe and the United States.

This isn’t the first time climate alarmists have lost the plot and resorted to extreme “solutions.” In recent years, environmentalists have urged people to not have children, give up their pets, stay away from houseplants, and now, slaughter farm animals.

Being anti-life – whether it be animal or human – is no way to fight climate change. As an environmentalist, I want to preserve the health of our planet so that life can be abundant, not nonexistent.

For too long, we’ve operated under the assumption humans and our society are a disease on the earth that needs to be cured. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, human society has contributed to environmental challenges, like climate change, but we’ve also made incredible advances and discoveries. Whether it be in art, science, or agriculture, it’s clear humans are not the disease; we’re the cure.

There are many diverse solutions to the climate challenges we face, but I can assure you ending the lives of 200,000 dairy cows prematurely is not one of them. Sacrificing life – any life – for emissions reductions is a poor precedent to set, and it frankly won’t be effective. In the United States, for instance, dairy cows account for 1.3% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Surely, we could be spending our efforts elsewhere instead of terrorizing the agricultural sector.

Moreover, there are often more elegant and innovative ways to mitigate the effects of climate change than the extreme measures proposed. For instance, regenerative agriculture techniques such as the usage of cover crops for grazing to improve soil quality are already in use all around the world. Allowing cattle to roam and graze naturally, rather than overgrazing pastures, has proven an effective way for both the animals and the ecosystem to thrive. Those in agriculture have also discovered simply switching out dairy cows’ feed can greatly reduce methane emissions associated with their herds. 

These solutions are not only more humane than the options Ireland is considering, but they’re also more forward-looking. Reducing the size of dairy cow herds in one fell swoop would be a short-term emissions reduction, sure, but in the long term, there would be no progress in making the industry more sustainable overall. We know logically we cannot, as a society, survive without a robust agricultural sector, so we should strive to incrementally reduce its environmental impact, not exterminate it.

Protecting our planet should also mean protecting the life on it. We shouldn’t sacrifice life for the planet, or the planet for life. Instead, we should take an approach – such as regenerative agriculture for this instance – that allows constructive collaboration between nature and society. The alternative is pursuing medicine worse than the disease.

Read the original here.

Following Winter Storm Uri, which left more than two out of three Texans without power at some point, the state’s leadership has been under pressure to strengthen the power grid. That pressure has grown with every subsequent winter freeze or summer heat wave as Texans are reminded of the fragility of our grid.

After two years of review from state officials and out-of-state consultants, the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas now has a proposal before the state legislature to introduce a Performance Credit Mechanism (PCM), a system that would radically overhaul how our energy market functions, institute unprecedented government control, and leave consumers paying more to heat and cool their homes.

The PCM works by awarding credit to power plants that are available to produce power during strains on the grid, and then requiring electricity providers to buy those credits. The challenge, however, is there’s no guarantee the electricity that was paid for in advance will actually be available when needed.

If this is supposed to be an energy insurance program, it’s a terrible one.

One thing is clear: the PCM will raise energy costs at a time when 45% of Texans are struggling to pay their energy bills. It’s estimated to cost consumers about $5.7 billion annually, and as ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas said, “in an energy market, all costs flow down to consumers… Generators would pass that cost down to consumers who pay for the energy.”

The facts behind the February 2021 and December 2022 outages have been intentionally misrepresented by those seeking to discredit renewables. As Matt Welch and Josiah Neeley recently wrote, “every single credible after-action report… concluded that the freezing of mostly thermal power plants and the natural gas system were to blame for the vast majority of the power failures.” In other words, the favorite talking point of state leaders that renewables were to blame is false. As for the Christmas Eve 2022 outages, they were caused by damaged power lines – not a failure of the grid.

The discrepancy between fact and fiction is important because the PCM would strictly benefit traditional energy sources like gas and coal; renewable energy is not eligible for these credits. This isn’t a mistake. The supporters of this system are seeking to create a market that favors the very energy sources that caused our blackouts in the first place.

Texas doesn’t need a top-down, Soviet-style takeover of our energy market. That sort of control should be reserved for states like California, which also picks winners and losers in favor of renewables by mandating 100 percent renewables by 2045. The legislature should instead spend their time and funding on strengthening and weatherizing our energy infrastructure. Our grid needs repair, but the PCM proposal is like buying a brand new car because your current car needs new tires.

As a conservative, I believe in economic freedom, competition, and American innovation. Despite what some Republican leaders are saying, the reforms before the Texas Legislature stand directly against those values. It would mean top-down control, with the government picking winners (power plant operators and traditional energy producers) and losers (renewable energy). Such an overhaul would ultimately undermine the competitive environment and the all-of-the-above energy approach that makes Texas so unique and attractive to millions.

The debate over how to fix Texas’ energy issues has been far from sober. Misinformation has dominated the discussion, renewable energy sources have been unfairly demonized, and the effect on consumers has been ignored. Supporters of the PCM seem to be intoxicated on the idea of government control.

Read the original here.

Growing up in Texas, some of my richest memories include camping with my dad. Between hiking in the woods, fishing in the lakes, and watching the stars at night, I developed a strong pride for this state and all it has to offer. It’s a pride embedded in every Texan’s DNA. We’re a vast and unique land with nearly every kind of natural environment imaginable. More broadly, we lead the country on so many things, from commerce and politics to culture and energy.

While our history is steeped in identity as the oil and gas capital of the United States, our future is quickly becoming guided by a leadership role in clean energy and conservation. This is something we should highlight regularly, but especially on a day like Earth Day, when we celebrate our planet and reaffirm our commitment to protecting it.

We are facing some serious environmental challenges, many of which feel so monumental and divisive it can be hard to see a path toward solutions. What should give us hope, however, is remembering that all environmental challenges are local challenges. If we all stewarded our communities the best we can, we’d all be a lot better off.

Read more here.

As Republicans prepare to debate in Milwaukee, matters of the environment are top of mind for many young voters, including conservatives watching the field shape up. Stephen Perkins of the American Conservation Coalition joins Jim to explain how the group is working on the ground in Milwaukee to engage the candidates as they work to win over a new generation of voters.

Watch it here

The Biden administration last month paused all new liquefied natural gas export projects. This move was hailed as a win for environmentalists; not only is that a lie, but it’s also the latest example of the Biden administration attempting to pull a fast one on voters.

When you dig into the details, you’ll find that President Joe Biden’s LNG pause is only in effect until Nov. 5, which happens to be Election Day. After the election, operations will likely resume as usual. The move is purely political, ensuring that his campaign is in the good graces of voters — specifically young ones who care about climate change.

For nearly four years, progressive climate groups have demanded the Biden administration end American dependence on fossil fuels. Now, with 10 months until the presidential election, his administration has shamelessly attempted to pacify these groups through a temporary pause.

The Biden administration isn’t acting in good faith; instead, it is pulling the wool over young voters’ eyes. The reality is that exporting American natural gas has a number of environmental and national security benefits. Not only does America produce natural gas more cleanly than many other countries, but when the alternative for European countries is to rely on an aggressor such as Russia, the choice is clear. Environmentalists who want to feel good without doing good are shortsighted.

Biden’s move on LNG exports follows the same plotline as his empty promises on student debt. What was a key component of his 2020 campaign ended up resulting in no tangible action for countless young people who voted for him because of that promise. These diversions only serve to appease young voters long enough for electoral — not policy — results.

Read the original here.