Hank Green Explains the Climate Bill
August 12, 2022 7:54 PM   Subscribe

"This is a big problem, that no one person understands all of. But in this video you're going to go from understanding more than like, 80 or 90% of people, to understanding this more than 99% of people. And it's only going to take you like 15 minutes". (SLYT 22:23)

The thing about this bill is that it's going to keep having a huge impact on the country for many many years and, mostly, we will not even notice. That's what happens with almost all good legislation. Of course, there will also be some bits of this that won't work as intended and they'll probably be big news stories. When you've got like 150 different pieces of a bill, not everything will be perfect! But it is quite a big deal for me to see America making these investments...even if I'm not gung-ho on all of them, and some of them legit piss me off...it's an amazing step that I did not think we would be making.

I have not read much of the recent thread about the passing of this bill, so apologies if all this info and/or this video was linked in there. I only have so much brain and I'm following a bunch of other things instead. I found this video to be an excellent breakdown of the bill, and with a (much needed) hopeful outlook.
posted by Glinn (38 comments total) 54 users marked this as a favorite
 
A big, surprising step forward. Not the end of the fight, but undeniably encouraging progress.
posted by darkstar at 8:48 PM on August 12 [9 favorites]


Great video! It's really hard to make heads or tails of the impact of this bill because it contains some compromise provisions that may increase fossil fuel production alongside large investments in green technologies and carbon capture in the form of tax breaks.

Here is another article I found that summarizes modeling used by different various environmental groups to gauge the impact of the bill on greenhouse gas emissions.

Generally the consensus seems to be that the IRA might get us within striking distance of our pledge to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2030.

One question I have concerns the structure of the tax credits. I have a somewhat geeky interest in cars, so I read the electric car subreddits, which have been following the tax credits like hawks. The consensus seems to be that most electric cars won't qualify for the tax credit after the bill is signed next week, so the IRA actually will constitute a reduction in the number of electric vehicles eligible for the credit over the short term. Now, car manufacturers currently sell every electric vehicle they make, including Tesla whose cars aren't eligible for the credits at the moment, but I have to wonder how hidden tax credit issues such as these will affect the adoption of green energy technologies.

Really, the IRA is remarkable not only for its significant climate investments but also its attempts to create a battery and electric vehicle assembly supply chains on American shores. Combined with the CHIPS act, which attempts to move microchip manufacturing from Asia to the US, it forms a new trend in American economic policy which is distinctly protectionist out of national security interests. I say that not as criticism, only to note the remarkable change. The post cold war globalization era that I grew up in really seems to be coming to an end.

To bring it back to climate, I have to wonder how that will impact the roll out of green technologies. So much of world economic growth pre 2020 occurred on the back of cheap labor in countries like China combined with relatively free resources flows around the world. How quickly the US is able to build up domestic production of green items like solar cells and lithium batteries will be key to the success of the act. Right now, China is a big player in both markets.

All that being said, I've also read that there is a chance certain provisions with the tax credits might be delayed by regulatory actions and IRS rules. Nobody knows for sure at this point, including the car companies, so a lot will be decided over the coming year.
posted by eagles123 at 8:55 PM on August 12 [10 favorites]


darkstar: "Not the end of the fight"

Maybe more like the end of the beginning of the fight. Although in today's USA even that might have to wait until Republican districts fully realize how much this helps them and the threat to overturn it fades.
posted by johnabbe at 9:17 PM on August 12 [3 favorites]


It trades away the Gulf Coast. I mean, great, it was a debate between Schumer and Manchin, we were always going to get eaten to fluff up coal prices one last time.

But I don't want to hear anymore "but it's the red states' fault" when it was our air and our land, our wetlands, and our future the liberals spent on the trading floor.
posted by eustatic at 9:30 PM on August 12 [10 favorites]


this was good. this is not a thing that a nation in decline would do. same for the semiconductor bill. the pat stories from the left about "late capitalism" endstate or from the right that dictatorships at least "get things done" seem like a bunch of fuckin bs to me today.
posted by wibari at 10:31 PM on August 12 [7 favorites]


Here's a 90 minute podcast on the topic from David Roberts for those who want wonkier detail. Conclusions are very consistent with the video in the FPP for this thread.

One point is that historically the push by environmentalists has been supply side--make carbon more expensive. The bill marks a shift towards demand side, giving incentives to make using clean energy more attractive through tax incentives or better tech. If we are fortunate this will render some of the permitting provisions less impactful: you won't build a big offshore rig if it's not going to be profitable because there no use for oil.

Another point I saw on a twitter thread was that in academic terms it marks a victory for the political scientists over the economists. For years the economic theory said that the goal should be getting carbon pricing right. We failed to pass legislation to do this, because it meant attacking powerful interests head on. This bill shifts strategy; it's basically a green industrial policy instead. (Didn't bookmark the thread, but yes, it was from a poli sci professor.)

Finally: It is a sign of how badly the Republicans have failed the country that Joe Manchin, a multimillionaire coal baron, is more willing to do a climate deal than even the most "moderate" senator from the other side of the aisle. Manchin is still a horrible public official but if even a single Republican had willing to negotiate his influence would have plummeted.
posted by mark k at 11:16 PM on August 12 [32 favorites]


Great post, thanks!
posted by dmh at 3:52 AM on August 13 [1 favorite]


I encourage everyone to listen to the Volts podcast mark k linked to above. The excitement from the guests, Jesse Jenkins and Leah Stokes, is really encouraging. Even the things they don’t like as much, like stuff about leasing for oil and gas production, they don’t view as disastrous.
posted by schoolgirl report at 5:52 AM on August 13 [4 favorites]


> How quickly the US is able to build up domestic production of green items like solar cells and lithium batteries will be key to the success of the act. Right now, China is a big player in both markets.

from a business perspective: Does Elon Musk have a strategy?
Or is he just out there winging it? Looking at Musk’s many companies, common themes stand out across three areas: what fits into his vision for problems to solve, how he designs an organization as a solution to those problems, and why he can so effectively mobilize resources towards those solutions. Musk seeks problems that require navigating scale and overcoming complexity. Organizationally, he favors vertical integration and closed systems. To finance his projects, he’s able to marshal tremendous resources because he has large personal stakes in his companies and is able to stir public and investor emotions, even if the logic of how a given business will succeed may not be clear...

First, navigating scale means he selects problems that can only be solved through the commitment of massive fixed-cost investments. Consider Tesla’s behemoth “gigafactories.” The idea behind these factories is that mass producing electric vehicles at costs that make them viable for a broad commercial market requires massive scale.
from a political one: "the structure of technology drives inexorably towards the most economically efficient outcomes, but the ultimate end state will increasingly be a matter of politics." posted by kliuless at 5:55 AM on August 13 [5 favorites]


eagles123, I've been following those same discussions about eligible EVs. It's seemed to me that a certain amount of the pessimism is perhaps unwarranted, and is possibly being driven politically too. I have seen some articles that suggested there is more flexability than the picture being painted there about what EVs are eligible in the immediate to short term.

There was an article yesterday in the NYT with some relevant tidbits:
Some of the restrictions on eligibility for a tax credit may not be as strict as they appear and may be up for interpretation.
...
The legislation leaves it to regulators to decide which components would be classified as Chinese.
posted by joeyh at 5:57 AM on August 13 [1 favorite]


I'm more than a little shocked that this has happened. Of course the greatest legislative achievement of the Biden administration has been shoved off the front page by the previous guy doing a treason.
posted by octothorpe at 7:08 AM on August 13 [9 favorites]


It's nice to see some mention of what the Dems are actually getting accomplished for a change, instead of Trump's latest antics.
posted by Bee'sWing at 8:49 AM on August 13 [1 favorite]


One question I have concerns the structure of the tax credits. I have a somewhat geeky interest in cars, so I read the electric car subreddits, which have been following the tax credits like hawks. The consensus seems to be that most electric cars won't qualify for the tax credit after the bill is signed next week, so the IRA actually will constitute a reduction in the number of electric vehicles eligible for the credit over the short term. Now, car manufacturers currently sell every electric vehicle they make, including Tesla whose cars aren't eligible for the credits at the moment, but I have to wonder how hidden tax credit issues such as these will affect the adoption of green energy technologies.

Having an electric car tax credit for an $80,000 vehicle is just a subsidy to the rich. Electric cars are mostly better than their ICE counterparts and rich people can sink the upfront and float the necessary funds while the payoff happens. The technology has passed the 5% market share tipping point. The electrification of autos is all but inevitable at this point as economies of scale ramp up and the economy in general begins to regear itself around this new paradigm.

What the new tax credit does is more strategic. It ensures that supplies of raw lithium are developed domestically or at least in countries economically aligned to the US. It also ensures that supply chain technology has a disincentive to be moved offshore. Look at tech for instance. During the '70s and '80s it was aggressively moved offshore at part of the commoditization and now there is literally zero computer manufacturing done in the United States. There are parts of the computer made in the US, some extremely high value like Intel CPUs, but it's literally impossible to buy an electronic device that's built and assembled by all American components. All of it is basically handled by China at this point. All of the assembly, all of the low value commodity parts, all of that is handled almost entirely within China.

This is a bad thing because if (when?) China declares war on Taiwan it's going to be a tech fucking clusterfuck of economic proportions not seen in history. It's easy for people to deride handouts to chip makers but, well, that's the administration preparing for the worst case scenario getting high tech to bring more of the supply chain back onshore. Autarky is a fool's dream but if anyone can do it, the United States is probably one of the few that could attempt it with any sort of chance for success.

What happened with high tech cannot be allowed to happen again. Not with electric transport.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:11 AM on August 13 [8 favorites]


This news takes me completely by surprise. After a whole year of "Manchin cancels the climate", here it is. I wish I could only see what actually happens, instead of arguments about what might or might not happen, and no news when it comes to pass. See also - did we change dst or not?
posted by rebent at 1:01 PM on August 13 [2 favorites]


This week's episode of The Economist's checks & balance podcast discusses this legislation - How big a deal is the Inflation Reduction Act? There's discussion of the climate & energy side, and a bit on the drug pricing, and a bit of speculation about near term political consequences.

The current situation is compared with the omnibus budget reconcilliation act which was passed 51-50 in 1993, despite every Republican and some Democrats voting against it in the senate, with the 50-50 tie broken by the vice president.

The discussion includes speculation that one factor that may contribute to how partisan US politics has become is that control of the house flips between both parties reasonably often these years -- whereas historically there was a long stretch (1955 - 1995 ?) where democrats had uninterrupted control of the house. If you think there's a pretty good chance your party might get control in four years, that's arguably an incentive to hunker down and not cooperate, and wait until the situation turns around. Whereas if your party might not gain control for a decade or four, perhaps that's a bit more incentive to come to the table and try to influence things in a somewhat bipartisan way.

The filibuster, special expedited treatment of reconciliation and extremely partisan politics creates a degenerate situation. Because of the filibuster and partisan voting along party lines, it is very challenging for one party to pass any legislation at all through the standard process, unless it is jammed into reconciliation, which is a trick allowed but once a year. So the game is to gather all of the things your side wants and jam them into one gigantic amorphous law attached to reconciliation, then negotiate the details until enough people on your side can tolerate it compared to the alternative of getting nothing done at all.

Apparently there are are still things that both sides can agree on, although they tend to be reasonably pointless: the U.S. Senate last night unanimously approved a bipartisan resolution [...] to officially designate September 25, 2022 as National Lobster Day.

Anyhow, any pro-climate legislation is fantastic news, especially from the US, given it is one of the major powers that needs to demonstrate a willingness to take the lead.
posted by are-coral-made at 2:37 AM on August 14 [1 favorite]


Or protecting their own backsides. They had no problem protecting judges from protesters at record breaking speed even though that has and continues to be impossible for say abortion providers.
posted by Mitheral at 7:00 AM on August 14 [4 favorites]


> The technology has passed the 5% market share tipping point.

I'm not trying to quibble over details, but that's emphatically not true in most of the country.

There are a relatively small number of electric vehicles registered in Missouri. According to the draft, 6,740 all-electric vehicles were on the road as of June 2021, representing less than 1% of all vehicles registered in the state.
(From the St Louis Post-Dispatch the other day)

I do think the ascendance of electric cars is now close to a sure thing, but the speed at which we get there matters enormously. Every ICE car sold is an opportunity lost for 10 years or more, since they will stay on the road for that long. Credits help folks on the fence swallow that extra up-front cost until electrics become competitive on the sticker price. (given reduced fuel costs, and the almost complete lack of maintenance, many are already cheaper over a 10-year horizon, but people are notoriously bad at caring about that sort of thing)
posted by chrisamiller at 6:58 AM on August 15 [3 favorites]


EV adoption is definitely going to be very different in different states. I was in Silicon Valley for a week this summer and I swear every third car there was a Tesla but they're more uncommon here in Pennsylvania. The real trick is building out the charging infrastructure; public high-speed chargers need to be at least as common as gas stations are now.
posted by octothorpe at 7:23 AM on August 15 [3 favorites]


The charging infrastructure is definitely the limiting factor up here in (most of) Canada. Almost makes the estimated three year wait for certain models of ev here a positive thing….
posted by eviemath at 8:01 AM on August 15


I do think the ascendance of electric cars is now close to a sure thing, but the speed at which we get there matters enormously. Every ICE car sold is an opportunity lost for 10 years or more, since they will stay on the road for that long. Credits help folks on the fence swallow that extra up-front cost until electrics become competitive on the sticker price. (given reduced fuel costs, and the almost complete lack of maintenance, many are already cheaper over a 10-year horizon, but people are notoriously bad at caring about that sort of thing)

I would normally agree but electric cars are overwhelmingly supply limited right now. Companies can't make them fast enough right now so there's nothing to be gained by making them cheaper. The supply chains are still being built or regearing themselves towards the electric future and, like you said, it will take time. 5% is the marker that the transition is successfully occurring. As this transition goes further and further the trend will only accelerate as the rest of the ecosystem is built out until we have far cheaper and superior electric cars that win over ICE by default.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:32 AM on August 15 [2 favorites]


EV adoption is definitely going to be very different in different states. I was in Silicon Valley for a week this summer and I swear every third car there was a Tesla but they're more uncommon here in Pennsylvania.

EVs are luxury cars - where luxury cars are common EVs are common.

The real trick is building out the charging infrastructure; public high-speed chargers need to be at least as common as gas stations are now.

Teslas are still the most common luxury car I see driving across the US on I40. Way more Teslas than BMWs/Porsche/Mercedes outside of major cities. Probably due to the percent of leases BMW (high) vs Telsas which are mostly purchased so mileage limits aren't constraining. In any case, if you can drive a Tesla down I40 which has 50+ mile segments with nothing, then you can drive one across the US.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:57 AM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Sorry, my point is that cost is the main driver of purchasing them now, not so much range anymore (though that may drive individual purchasing decisions).
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:59 AM on August 15


Keep in mind that three quarters of all EV charging is done at home.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:35 AM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Is the Leaf a luxury car?
posted by Selena777 at 10:20 AM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Used 1st-gen EVs are not luxury cars, with many options under $15k. Range is an issue with them though.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 10:22 AM on August 15 [2 favorites]


Quick follow-up to @rebent:

See also - did we change dst or not?

The Sunshine Protection Act (aka S.623) was passed by the US Senate by unanimous consent on March 15, 2022. Since delivery to the house on March 16 2022, the bill has been sitting as "held at desk" with no further progress.

The latest news on it seems to be that the House is arguing over which time to permanently implement (Standard or Daylight), plus the fact that there are more important matters that call for legislative attention.
posted by neuracnu at 10:27 AM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Wow, thank you so much. I just screenshotted your comment and sent to my friend, who I had an argument with over this, which totally derailed my question of if the sun was at its apex at noon or not.
posted by rebent at 7:02 PM on August 15


Rhodium group study

I've been reading over a summary of one of the modeling studies discussed in the linked podcasts and articles. Maybe its my social science/statistical training, but it makes more sense to look at the projections as ranges rather than point estimates. For example, the Rhodium group summarizes their study:


In this report, we provide a detailed assessment of the key energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of this historic legislation. The IRA is a game changer for US decarbonization. We find that the package as a whole drives US net GHG emissions down to 32-42% below 2005 levels in 2030, compared to 24-35% without it.


So, in other words, without the IRA US GHG emissions will drop between 24 and 35% below 2005 levels while with the IRA US GHG emissions will drop between 32 and 42 percent below those levels. So, we're looking at about a 10 percent reduction over and above our current rate of GHG emission reduction, roughly speaking, due to the IRA. My eyes also immediately race to the overlap.

The biggest driver of the reduction is in the electric generation, which is good because electricity to manufacture and power other devices like green tech has to come from somewhere. The next biggest driver is carbon capture, which is less good because that assumes growth in the carbon capture technology industry, with which will come increased lobbying power alongside the existing power of the fossil fuel industry. I mention that because the linked podcast talks a lot about the political economics of the bill, specifically the IRA's potential to create a clean energy economic sector that will lobby for further bills aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

The other report area that drew my interest was their acknowledgement that the restructured EV tax credits likely will impact near term EV adoption. A a result, they include a very large range for their estimates of EV vehicles on the road by 2030: 19 to 57% with the IRA versus 12 to 43% without. So about a 7 to 14 percent increase of EV adaption relative to baselines, with that increase likely occurring more towards the end of the decade as more companies are able to claim tax credits once they (hopefully) set up manufacturing chains in the US.

So, while I know there are definitely auto industry groups arguing against these changes, there also exist legitimate concerns from people and companies who feel like the rules are being changed underneath them, particularly those interested in buying products from Hyundia/KIA, who make some of the best non-luxury EVs at the moment. European auto manufacturers also may challenge the rules under the WTO.

Also, the new EV tax rules make a somewhat arbitrary distinction between SUVs and sedans/hatchbacks. That means most trims of the Model Y will get a 7500 tax break while only the base Model 3 trims will despite both being nearly identical. Considering Ford just raised the price of the F-150 by 7000 dollars, these tax credits likely will be pocketed by manufactures, so car companies are kind of being incentivized to build less efficient cars or at least offer less efficient cars in the American market. The VAG already doesn't sell the ID3 in the America, opting for only the larger ID4 instead. Because Ford and GM decided to only sell SUVs and trucks besides the Bolt, the leaves the Koreans and Tesla as the only companies offering smaller cars, but the Koreans just lost the tax credit.

I really hope the Democrats manage to pull out a miracle in the fall and keep the House and add to their Senate majorities so that they can pass further fixes to this bill.
posted by eagles123 at 8:37 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


Is the Leaf a luxury car?

It is not, but I just checked and Nissan sold 4,000 of them in Q1 2022 with the highest US (by dollar, not inflation adjusted) gas prices ever. The Ford F150 sold 150,000 units in the same period of time. T he Leaf is a nothing car.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:49 AM on August 16


24 and 35% below 2005 levels while with the IRA US GHG emissions will drop between 32 and 42 percent below those levels.

24 to 32 is an 8 percentage point increase in reduction but a 33% increase. 35 to 42 is a 7 percentage point increase but 20% increase.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:36 AM on August 16


President Biden:
The Inflation Reduction Act is now law.

Giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. Ensuring wealthy corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

And taking the biggest step forward on climate in our history.
posted by octothorpe at 7:28 AM on August 17 [3 favorites]


There's a lot of credit to go around for passing this against all odds (including activists, wonks, academics, non-profits, etc.)

But from reading the follow up analyses, the House's Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, chaired by Kathy Castor, was tireless at coming up with proposals that had a chance of becoming laws and is a reason why this is looking pretty good even with all the necessary compromises. There are certainly timelines where the votes are cobbled together but the policy stinks; kudos to Rep. Castor.
posted by mark k at 12:16 PM on August 17 [6 favorites]


Also, the new EV tax rules make a somewhat arbitrary distinction between SUVs and sedans/hatchbacks. That means most trims of the Model Y will get a 7500 tax break while only the base Model 3 trims will despite both being nearly identical. Considering Ford just raised the price of the F-150 by 7000 dollars, these tax credits likely will be pocketed by manufactures, so car companies are kind of being incentivized to build less efficient cars or at least offer less efficient cars in the American market. The VAG already doesn't sell the ID3 in the America, opting for only the larger ID4 instead. Because Ford and GM decided to only sell SUVs and trucks besides the Bolt, the leaves the Koreans and Tesla as the only companies offering smaller cars, but the Koreans just lost the tax credit.

Except you can't actually buy any of these cars for love or money. Just ask my Telegram group chat who have been trying to just get their hands on EV6s and Ioniq 5s, tax credits be damned. The bottleneck is firmly in how quickly we can scale up manufacturing, not in getting them off the lot. There's no reason to have a blanket demand subsidy for something that's clearly selling like hotcakes. Not to mention worldwide sales of EVs are pretty much fungible as far as carbon reduction is concerned. Hell, a French person or a Canadian person buying an EV is going to power it with way less carbon than a US consumer.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:00 PM on August 17


I agree, but yet here we are. From what I understand Manchin wanted to do away with the tax credits but the auto manufacturers wanted them, so they met in the middle on this compromise. Originally the credit was supposed to be capped at 55000 MSRP for all cars, but someone lobbied for the cap on SUVs and trucks to be raised. Considering Ford and GM only sell SUVs and trucks except for the Bolt, I suspect they lobbied for the change.

The only caveat i might add is that Americans drive more because of longer distances and much less developed mass transit, so electric cars in the US might reduce emissions more than electric cars in other countries where people don't have to drive as much.

My question is how what are effectively subsidies to the car manufacturers (which I agree are unneeded because electric cars are "flying off lots") are going to affect the composition of the US fleet over the next 10 years, which is the duration of the tax breaks.
posted by eagles123 at 12:17 AM on August 18


Nice bit snuck into the bill: Carbon dioxide was defined as an "air pollutant." The Supreme Court had just declared that the EPA couldn't regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act because it was too major a decision to be made by a regulatory agency instead of Congress; well, now Congress has made the decision so it's right back into the EPA's bailiwick. Ted Cruz's comment is really funny.

David Roberts has another 3 hours of content with Princeton Professor Jesse Jenkins on his Volts podcast, specifically answering questions he received about the bill. Some of the bits I remember:
  • The Gulf Coast/Alaska drilling provisions allow 4 specific projects to go ahead. Jenkins assumes they are named because the sponsors lobbied for it, which unfortunately means the sponsors will actually develop them.
  • Leasing on public lands, OTOH, isn't as bad as it could be. Leases have to be offered but they actually increased the minimum cost and put no restrictions on which land is offered. Especially if a climate friendly administration is in power.
  • The EV credits are confusing and arbitrary but will turn out to be mostly accessible. For car production, for example, all the mass market makers but Hyundai already assemble in the US, and Hyundai will have a factory up shortly.
  • The impact of other permitting being accelerated is a matter of dispute (and guesswork.) Jenkins opinion is building energy infrastructure faster is better for renewables, because of the underlying economics (which are influenced by other incentives in the bill.)
  • Tax credits for renewables are unnecessarily labyrinthine but do about 99% of what people wanted to get money into the hands of producers.
  • There are provisions that companies who want full tax credits need to pay certain minimum wages to their workforce.
posted by mark k at 11:25 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]


Some of the bits I remember:
The Gulf Coast/Alaska drilling provisions allow 4 specific projects to go ahead
.

Do you remember any specifics, like the companies or project names? Which of the three podcasts discusses this? Thanks!
posted by eustatic at 9:48 AM on August 23


Ok I looked it up.

The discussion is in 19:30 of the first wonk podcast --not the introduction

the Act refers to Lease Sales 257, 258, 259, and 261. [SEC. 50264. LEASE SALES UNDER THE 2017-2022 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
LEASING PROGRAM]

Each of these lease sales involves about 50 companies, so i do think the podcast folks don't quite know that in their analysis, which you summarized very well --thanks again!

Among those 50 Companies, most leases are single-bid, and most bids are from the supermajors. Shell, BP, and the return of Exxon.

here's a map I made of lease sale 253. And another. it's rather hard to make these maps. The BOEM data is not formatted for modern software like ArcGIS or Excel.

in the Gulf, these include deep(est) water drilling off of Florida in whale and shearwater habitat, although outside of the 150 mi Florida beach moratorium. It includes BP and Chevron, and also rans like LLOG.

Significantly, I think it was 257 where Exxon --who hasn't been offshore in a long time --leased a lot of the ocean outside of Port Arthur for CCS. see here for a map of LNG pipes, Talos state of TX leases, and Exxon OCS leases--as well as potential conflicts with sand resources. U of Austin proposed a business case for drilling carbon wells offshore, and Exxon and Talos are following the U of Austin recommendations.

If you like CCS, as the podcast kinda does, you like this. If you don't like CCS or don't like Exxon, you hate it. CCS has been opposed on Environmental Justice grounds, and if you looked at a map of where the CCS proposals are (60% in Black areas? 80% in Black areas?) you could see that the map of CCS proposals is a racist map.

This means thousands of productive wetland acres in federal and state parks will be ripped up for the new Carbon pipelines, and the areas being ripped up will be mostly around Port Arthur, which makes Port A look like the nation's most endangered town right now.
posted by eustatic at 10:40 AM on August 23 [1 favorite]


and, at the risk of self-linking, you can donate to Healthy Gulf, whose lawsuits were overturned by Manchin at healthygulf.org/donate.

your donations will help me make more specific maps of these lease sales, and get you and this podcast author the list of companies.
posted by eustatic at 10:48 AM on August 23 [1 favorite]


« Older Unfortunately, this post is being delayed by air...   |   Shark attacks ‘the new normal for New Yorkers’ Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments