Could not agree more with your characterization of so many “progressives”. Which is why I call them Regressives.
I appreciate those who consider themselves to be among them who refuse to toe the doctrinaire line and instead make the case for far more sensible policies, in particular abundance.
The issue, IMHO, is that the louder one is about “climate change,” the less knowledgeable one is about power generation.
We keep hearing from climate calamitists that we need to speed up the “energy transition.”
But: there is no energy transition, and there are no viable plans, save nuclear power, for zero-carbon power generation.
Wind & solar cannot power our world. Ask any climate activist for the details, without platitudes such as, “Use Clean Power!!” of the plan they propose or endorse to power our world…you’ll be called the religious term “Denier!” and then most likely blocked just for asking the question.
The problem, of course, is that any plan to power our world with “renewables” relies upon things not yet invented, such as reasonably priced grid-scale storage.
Oh, and requiring so much metals and minerals in concurrent use yet that we do not have sufficient mining capacity.
Or time to bring online sufficient wind & solar before the first sets are worn out.
Or ability to necessarily expand our grids in the needed time frames.
Sigh. But most are against nuclear power…that needs none of these unattainable resources.
I educate people on the central need for abundant energy every day. :)
I'm not a fan of natural gas as it's a potent greenhouse gas, and even a 1-2% leak rate from distribution makes it as bad as coal burning. Of course we'll be using it for decades anyway. It is what it is.
There's ignorance of energy systems on all sides of the political spectrum.
Ignorance is not the problem. The problem is ideologies that lead to anti-energy abundance policies. That is overwhelmingly coming from the Left.
If you truly believe in energy abundance, I think that you should seriously rethink your opposition to natural gas.
If you are "not a fan of natural gas," then I do not think that you can credibly claim that you are in favor of abundant energy.
You cannot honestly say that you are only in favor of certain types of abundant energy but not others.
And, no, burning natural gas does not produce "potent greenhouse gas."
New CCGT plants emit 1/3 the carbon dioxide of existing coal plants, and we can easily swap all coal plants for very energy-efficient CCGT plants in the USA in 5 years. Plus natural is extremely low in air pollution, and land use, and methane is fully broken down in combustion.
The "leaks" that you refer to are not leaks. Actual leaks are extremely low and falling because it is a valuable product for the industry.
What you are referring to is deliberate "venting" at the drill site because of a lack of natural gas pipeline connections. We can easily radically reduce venting by constructing new gas connections. Unfortunately, the Greens and most governments are strongly opposed to it.
Would you support the construction of natural gas connections to virtually eliminate this venting?
By the way, I have got plenty of energy articles that you might be interested in:
Yes, the ideologies born out of, and that capitalize on, ignorance of energy issues. For example, when ignorance of nuclear power is abated, support increases. https://www.bisconti.com/blog/knowledge-vs-facts-2024
Methane is broken down in the atmosphere by sunlight in about 12 years, and isn’t directly comparable to CO² which stays active in the atmosphere for centuries without breaking down, only being removed by absorption by plants or dissolving into the ocean.
It sounds like you are far more interested in fighting climate change than energy abundance.
This is your prerogative, but you cannot credibly claim that you are in favor of energy abundance. In fact, you are exactly what the article is about: "Progressive against energy abundance" even though you claim otherwise.
Again, the Guardian article is not about natural gas "leaks" even though the writer probably thinks that it is. It is deliberate "venting,"
I also noticed that you avoided answering my question:
"Would you support the construction of natural gas connections to virtually eliminate this venting?"
‘Amory Lovins of Friends of the Earth puts it this way: “If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disasterous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.”’
Turns out that he’s right if you’re optimistic about energy doubling continuing every 30 to 50 years. What will we do with the resulting waste heat after say ten of those doublings?
I agree with all of that but it doesn’t contradict what I said, the key part being many more doublings of energy use. If that doesn’t happen, fine, but if it does that heat will exist.
And it will still be insignificant. Reduction in CO2 release will trap less heat in the atmosphere and easily offset more heat from energy production.
Do you also oppose solar? Panels decrease albedo and trap heat from the sun. Hydro does this too by creating large areas of water that also decrease albedo.
Earth-based solar and wind (also solar powered) are the best power sources to slow the long-term waste heat problem. New sources of energy like nuclear fusion/fission, geothermal, fossil and space-based solar exacerbate it.
Besides, can you point to any grid that uses only solar and wind? If you say storage is necessary, remember batteries lose a lot of energy to waste heat. Transmission lines lose energy to waste heat.
Seems to me that abundance and redistribution are the most natural companions one could hope for. Share the bounty.
The one massive omission in this plan, although it needn’t be, is the well-being of the non-human natural world including the billions of farmed animals that continued to be mostly othered in this nascent movement.
The problem is that Redistribution often gets in the way of Abundance.
I think that it is better to focus on Abundance (or what I call "Progress") and Upward Mobility. Upward Mobility is positive-sum, while Redistribution is zero-sum.
What I’ve heard so far in my relatively limited reading about the movement is very encouraging, except the implication in this piece that rent control is a policy to support. It is a stupendously bad idea for too many reasons to list here; rife with counterproductive consequences. The literature is full of studies by authors across the political spectrum concluding that”bad idea”, which articulate all the reasons in detail.
In particular, the effect of it runs directly contrary to the goal of abundance.
One of the reasons for the tightening housing supply is that corporations such as Sellers' Advantage and Blackrock and Vanguard are buying single-family homes and turning them into permanent rental properties.
My own two cents: this has, necessarily, the perspective if an advocate of the abundance philosophy. And a very eloquent one at that. And one with which I agree. But the debate among the chattering classes and advocates is not the real strength of the approach. Rather, the power is the reality of the trillions of choices that humans make very day. Formalized or not, perhaps just laziness or even indifference, people choose abundance. They like it, they want it, and they will continue to choose it to maintain a certain standard of living, or to achieve it. They have concerns and will sacrifice somewhat, but the vast majority of the choices show a revealed preference (even where not the stated preference) for abundance.
My point was that the abundance preference of the population at large will, in my opinion, effectively drive the future. We can all advocate and argue about whether abundance should be the philosophy that guides us and should be the basis for policy. That is great but the reason it will win out is not because of its superior logic or because it is a "movement" of people who are engaged and active in the climate sphere. Rather, it will win because the people who are not engaged and heavily invested (which I would argue is 80 percent of the population) will choose abundance in their actions.
I hop that is more clear. Thanks for the question.
I largely agree with you, but government policy really matters and politics heavily influences government policy.
Right now, the Green anti-progress activists are extremely organized and well-funded. This gives them a huge influence over energy policy in the Western world.
Meanwhile, the pro-energy Abundance people are not at all organized or funded. This gives us little influence over energy policy in the Western world.
We cannot rest on our laurels knowing that we are on the side of history. We must get organized and act.
I have so far not heard of a self-referring “abundance” movement. Is this something that formed in opposition to degrowthers? It is hard to imagine it predating them.
I think the problem is not with advocacy - mainstream politics effectively handed issues like social justice and climate off to fringe politics like a hot potato - "you care so much, you fix it" -and has successfully framed overall failure to fix it somehow the fault of the activism rather than the inactivism and failures of duty of care of those holding the highest Offices of responsibility and trust. Instead of climate politics being about addressing the climate problem it has been made into preventing "extremists" from enacting their preferred models for addressing it.
On the whole, I am on board with the abundance movement, defined here as "accelerated economic growth and technological progress, expanded material supply, improved government capacity and execution." However, I have misgivings about how population growth fits in, and about the way people I otherwise agree with view declining population growth as some kind of catastrophe. Why isn't it OK for abundance proponents to define everything in terms of per capita abundance, while accepting that on the whole, lower fertility and slower population growth are the welcome byproducts of better education, stronger women's agency, extended longevity, and the like? It seems to me that the "abundance per capita" approach is a useful step toward reconciling the abundance movement with the environmental movement. Do I make myself an outlier by thinking this way?
Well, if you’re not moved about the suffering that fells those who have not benefited from fossil fuel energy, I wouldn’t worry about the heat given off from fossil fuel energy.
I hope the "DOGE" movement can cut a LOT of govt. but, the only clear way to unleash innovation is to repeal the Anti-Trust laws. When you look at the history of how they have been applied, they attack the most efficient and profitable firms. This helps the mind-set of T. Roosevelt who said "Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick., and the enforcers/anti-business creeps take that seriously.
I am skeptical that repealing anti-trust laws will make much of a positive difference. I think there are much more effective means that we can implement in the near future.
It is not complicated.
Self-styled “Progressives” hate Progress and abundant, affordable energy.
This is what a perspective based on Progress looks like:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-manifesto-for-the-progress-based
As for strategies, I think Derek Thompson is correct. We need a true movement.
Could not agree more with your characterization of so many “progressives”. Which is why I call them Regressives.
I appreciate those who consider themselves to be among them who refuse to toe the doctrinaire line and instead make the case for far more sensible policies, in particular abundance.
I'm a self styled Progressive. I'm also an advocate for nuclear power and abundant energy.
Progressive ideals need abundant energy to succeed.
Glad to hear it.
Please tell your Progressive friends that they need to rethink their energy beliefs.
Out of curiosity, do you also favor natural gas?
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/16-reasons-why-greens-should-love
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-simple-and-cost-effective-plan
The issue, IMHO, is that the louder one is about “climate change,” the less knowledgeable one is about power generation.
We keep hearing from climate calamitists that we need to speed up the “energy transition.”
But: there is no energy transition, and there are no viable plans, save nuclear power, for zero-carbon power generation.
Wind & solar cannot power our world. Ask any climate activist for the details, without platitudes such as, “Use Clean Power!!” of the plan they propose or endorse to power our world…you’ll be called the religious term “Denier!” and then most likely blocked just for asking the question.
The problem, of course, is that any plan to power our world with “renewables” relies upon things not yet invented, such as reasonably priced grid-scale storage.
Oh, and requiring so much metals and minerals in concurrent use yet that we do not have sufficient mining capacity.
Or time to bring online sufficient wind & solar before the first sets are worn out.
Or ability to necessarily expand our grids in the needed time frames.
Sigh. But most are against nuclear power…that needs none of these unattainable resources.
I educate people on the central need for abundant energy every day. :)
I'm not a fan of natural gas as it's a potent greenhouse gas, and even a 1-2% leak rate from distribution makes it as bad as coal burning. Of course we'll be using it for decades anyway. It is what it is.
There's ignorance of energy systems on all sides of the political spectrum.
Ignorance is not the problem. The problem is ideologies that lead to anti-energy abundance policies. That is overwhelmingly coming from the Left.
If you truly believe in energy abundance, I think that you should seriously rethink your opposition to natural gas.
If you are "not a fan of natural gas," then I do not think that you can credibly claim that you are in favor of abundant energy.
You cannot honestly say that you are only in favor of certain types of abundant energy but not others.
And, no, burning natural gas does not produce "potent greenhouse gas."
New CCGT plants emit 1/3 the carbon dioxide of existing coal plants, and we can easily swap all coal plants for very energy-efficient CCGT plants in the USA in 5 years. Plus natural is extremely low in air pollution, and land use, and methane is fully broken down in combustion.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-wonders-of-ccgt
The "leaks" that you refer to are not leaks. Actual leaks are extremely low and falling because it is a valuable product for the industry.
What you are referring to is deliberate "venting" at the drill site because of a lack of natural gas pipeline connections. We can easily radically reduce venting by constructing new gas connections. Unfortunately, the Greens and most governments are strongly opposed to it.
Would you support the construction of natural gas connections to virtually eliminate this venting?
By the way, I have got plenty of energy articles that you might be interested in:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/t/green-energy-policies
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/t/energy
Yes, the ideologies born out of, and that capitalize on, ignorance of energy issues. For example, when ignorance of nuclear power is abated, support increases. https://www.bisconti.com/blog/knowledge-vs-facts-2024
Distribution of natural gas involves leaks, and methane is 70x more potent in trapping heat than CO2. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/13/us-gas-leaks-report-climate-change
Methane is broken down in the atmosphere by sunlight in about 12 years, and isn’t directly comparable to CO² which stays active in the atmosphere for centuries without breaking down, only being removed by absorption by plants or dissolving into the ocean.
It sounds like you are far more interested in fighting climate change than energy abundance.
This is your prerogative, but you cannot credibly claim that you are in favor of energy abundance. In fact, you are exactly what the article is about: "Progressive against energy abundance" even though you claim otherwise.
Again, the Guardian article is not about natural gas "leaks" even though the writer probably thinks that it is. It is deliberate "venting,"
I also noticed that you avoided answering my question:
"Would you support the construction of natural gas connections to virtually eliminate this venting?"
This guy is pedophile, well known among his peers in the nuclear advocacy space, Beware!
Who are you referring to?
https://atomicinsights.com/cheap-energy-quotes-from-nuclear-power-foes/
‘Amory Lovins of Friends of the Earth puts it this way: “If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disasterous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.”’
Yes, that Amory Lovins statement is about as anti-Progress as you can get.
How does waste heat compare to solar heat or geothermal heat?
Turns out that he’s right if you’re optimistic about energy doubling continuing every 30 to 50 years. What will we do with the resulting waste heat after say ten of those doublings?
He is not right. :) https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm
I agree with all of that but it doesn’t contradict what I said, the key part being many more doublings of energy use. If that doesn’t happen, fine, but if it does that heat will exist.
And it will still be insignificant. Reduction in CO2 release will trap less heat in the atmosphere and easily offset more heat from energy production.
Do you also oppose solar? Panels decrease albedo and trap heat from the sun. Hydro does this too by creating large areas of water that also decrease albedo.
Earth-based solar and wind (also solar powered) are the best power sources to slow the long-term waste heat problem. New sources of energy like nuclear fusion/fission, geothermal, fossil and space-based solar exacerbate it.
Exacerbating a minuscule effect.
Besides, can you point to any grid that uses only solar and wind? If you say storage is necessary, remember batteries lose a lot of energy to waste heat. Transmission lines lose energy to waste heat.
Seems to me that abundance and redistribution are the most natural companions one could hope for. Share the bounty.
The one massive omission in this plan, although it needn’t be, is the well-being of the non-human natural world including the billions of farmed animals that continued to be mostly othered in this nascent movement.
The problem is that Redistribution often gets in the way of Abundance.
I think that it is better to focus on Abundance (or what I call "Progress") and Upward Mobility. Upward Mobility is positive-sum, while Redistribution is zero-sum.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-progress-and-upward-mobility
What I’ve heard so far in my relatively limited reading about the movement is very encouraging, except the implication in this piece that rent control is a policy to support. It is a stupendously bad idea for too many reasons to list here; rife with counterproductive consequences. The literature is full of studies by authors across the political spectrum concluding that”bad idea”, which articulate all the reasons in detail.
In particular, the effect of it runs directly contrary to the goal of abundance.
One of the reasons for the tightening housing supply is that corporations such as Sellers' Advantage and Blackrock and Vanguard are buying single-family homes and turning them into permanent rental properties.
"You will own nothing" is progressing as planned. A rent-seekers paradise.
My own two cents: this has, necessarily, the perspective if an advocate of the abundance philosophy. And a very eloquent one at that. And one with which I agree. But the debate among the chattering classes and advocates is not the real strength of the approach. Rather, the power is the reality of the trillions of choices that humans make very day. Formalized or not, perhaps just laziness or even indifference, people choose abundance. They like it, they want it, and they will continue to choose it to maintain a certain standard of living, or to achieve it. They have concerns and will sacrifice somewhat, but the vast majority of the choices show a revealed preference (even where not the stated preference) for abundance.
People desire "abundance". If abundance means a higher standard of living, well-being and security, yes. This is not a revelation. What is the point?
My point was that the abundance preference of the population at large will, in my opinion, effectively drive the future. We can all advocate and argue about whether abundance should be the philosophy that guides us and should be the basis for policy. That is great but the reason it will win out is not because of its superior logic or because it is a "movement" of people who are engaged and active in the climate sphere. Rather, it will win because the people who are not engaged and heavily invested (which I would argue is 80 percent of the population) will choose abundance in their actions.
I hop that is more clear. Thanks for the question.
I think that’s exactly correct. Although it can also help to have a coherent, well-articulated, broadly-represented movement arguing the case.
I largely agree with you, but government policy really matters and politics heavily influences government policy.
Right now, the Green anti-progress activists are extremely organized and well-funded. This gives them a huge influence over energy policy in the Western world.
Meanwhile, the pro-energy Abundance people are not at all organized or funded. This gives us little influence over energy policy in the Western world.
We cannot rest on our laurels knowing that we are on the side of history. We must get organized and act.
I have so far not heard of a self-referring “abundance” movement. Is this something that formed in opposition to degrowthers? It is hard to imagine it predating them.
I think the problem is not with advocacy - mainstream politics effectively handed issues like social justice and climate off to fringe politics like a hot potato - "you care so much, you fix it" -and has successfully framed overall failure to fix it somehow the fault of the activism rather than the inactivism and failures of duty of care of those holding the highest Offices of responsibility and trust. Instead of climate politics being about addressing the climate problem it has been made into preventing "extremists" from enacting their preferred models for addressing it.
On the whole, I am on board with the abundance movement, defined here as "accelerated economic growth and technological progress, expanded material supply, improved government capacity and execution." However, I have misgivings about how population growth fits in, and about the way people I otherwise agree with view declining population growth as some kind of catastrophe. Why isn't it OK for abundance proponents to define everything in terms of per capita abundance, while accepting that on the whole, lower fertility and slower population growth are the welcome byproducts of better education, stronger women's agency, extended longevity, and the like? It seems to me that the "abundance per capita" approach is a useful step toward reconciling the abundance movement with the environmental movement. Do I make myself an outlier by thinking this way?
Well, if you’re not moved about the suffering that fells those who have not benefited from fossil fuel energy, I wouldn’t worry about the heat given off from fossil fuel energy.
Anyone want to talk about the “neolib” billionaires that fund all the progressive NGOs? There are two sides to the coin of their critique…
AstroTurf losers are upset that they have to play the game on the crappy fake field they created (made out of fossil fuels).
I hope the "DOGE" movement can cut a LOT of govt. but, the only clear way to unleash innovation is to repeal the Anti-Trust laws. When you look at the history of how they have been applied, they attack the most efficient and profitable firms. This helps the mind-set of T. Roosevelt who said "Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick., and the enforcers/anti-business creeps take that seriously.
I am skeptical that repealing anti-trust laws will make much of a positive difference. I think there are much more effective means that we can implement in the near future.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/priorities-for-the-second-trump-administration