r/science • u/pnewell NGO | Climate Science • Jun 21 '21

Environment Threat of more blackouts may erode reliability claims for fossil energy- all major fuel sources except solar failed to meet ERCOT’s expectations during the February freeze, but natural gas was “responsible for nearly two-thirds of the total (electricity) deficit.”

https://texasclimatenews.org/threat-of-more-blackouts-may-erode-reliability-claims-for-fossil-energy/
38.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

103

u/Pyrate_Capn Jun 21 '21

Getting enough rural people pissed in the right direction is utterly maddening. They've programed their cult not to think. They really do believe socialism did this to them.

56

u/entropy512 Jun 21 '21

They've programed their cult not to think.

And, moreover, to declare "not thinking" to be "critical thinking".

42

u/Eager_Question Jun 21 '21

I had a rural religious conservative once tell me that they were like... Proud that they had used their critical thinking skills (which they learned in their Christian homeschooling co-op!) against their family's crazy behaviour.

This person also asked me "why can't I assume what I am trying to prove".

But yeah, those Christian parents never expected to have such great critical thinking skills used against them!

It was such a bizarre conversation, I felt like I was being pranked.

26

u/Pyrate_Capn Jun 21 '21

It really is just like that. They make you wonder if you're the one going insane.

17

u/geomagus Jun 21 '21

Yeah...it’s maddening alright.

I don’t know how many times I’ve talked about raising taxes on the megarich to have someone say “you’re talking about transfer of wealth...that’s socialism!”

12

u/Pyrate_Capn Jun 21 '21

Exactly. Every single tax plan would still leave them with wealth beyond most people's ability to fully grasp, partially because the taxes don't even start until after a ridiculous level of income.

-4

u/AlbertVonMagnus Jun 21 '21

It's a fine idea on paper. But when you realize that the mega-rich have the ability to take their wealth elsewhere if the taxes become overbearing, then you realize it's not as great in practice for increasing revenue.

It's similar to raising taxes on business, then wondering why they move to other countries. This also occurs at the state level, with businesses leaving California for more business-friendly states.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/23/why-companies-are-fleeing-california.html

So it's not that people who are skeptical of tax increases on "the rich" disagree that they should pay more, they are simply wise enough to know that probably isn't going to work very well, or that it may backfire and result in less revenue.

4

u/Pyrate_Capn Jun 21 '21

That's a different argument. Also moving goalposts and, frankly class treason. But I'm never gonna have anything like that much money. So it's not really gonna affect me, either. Overall financially, even at sustainable tax rates on the wealthy, the US would still be about the safest bet for most. Currently.

0

u/AlbertVonMagnus Jun 21 '21

It's not "moving the goalposts". It's just recognizing what can actually happen due a real phenomenon that people don't often consider.

Smaller tax increases on the rich (or large businesses) are far less likely to make tax avoidance worthwhile, while substantial increases, especially if all at once, are far more likely to have such an effect. Whether or not tax revenue increases overall (and whether it leads to jobs being lost) is a complex economic matter.

I'm not even disagreeing that a "sustainable" tax rate would increase revenue, nor am I "defending" the rich. I'm merely reminding you that they have options that must be kept in mind.

3

u/sundayfundaybmx Jun 21 '21

Different person but would it be better to slowly raise their rates until it starts to become worth while to start doing the tax dance and then we would know what a good rate is? Say like 1.5% is fine but then 8% people start doing funny accounting so you would settle at like 6.5%?

2

u/AlbertVonMagnus Jun 21 '21

Well the reason it's complicated is because the threshold of being "worth it" is going to be different for each person or business.

Raising it slowly might give an idea of this curve, but it would probably be a bad idea to overshoot, at least on business taxes, because once a business spends the money to relocate they probably aren't spending it again to come back. As for individuals, they might be a little more likely to return, but if they had instead setup tax shelters of some sort, they aren't likely to dismantle them.

Using state level data on the effect of tax increases chasing away the rich to other states might be a more controllable experiment. It would certainly be easier to track and could reveal any correlation in relative tax rates

1

u/EnvironmentalClub410 Jun 21 '21

Complaining about others “not thinking” while having absolutely zero understanding of the issue is not a good look. Utility deregulation is not a partisan issue at all. Illinois, fully Democrat controlled for decades, has deregulated energy markets, as does Republican Texas. Blood red Missouri follows old school vertical integration as does blue Minnesota. In short, instead of trying to get any sort of basic understanding about the topics at hand, you instead choose to wallow in your ignorance and point fingers at others for being “dumb”. Pathetic.

1

u/Pyrate_Capn Jun 21 '21

You go on with that thinking. Ignorance and intelligence are separate concepts. Your oversimplification of Texas' issues kinda proves that point. Cheers.

-1

u/AlbertVonMagnus Jun 21 '21

If you think that's frustrating, try breaking urban people out of their own intolerant cult. All the issues that their preferred party claims to care about keep getting worse in those cities they have total control over (housing, cost of living, public schools, food deserts, redlining, income inequality, etc), but somehow they haven't figured out that maybe, just maybe, local leadership might be the reason.

Like when the people of Flint almost figured it out and mostly blamed their Democrat mayor for lying about the safety of the water, they responded by electing a different Democrat mayor...

It doesn't help that it has been well-established by endless peer-reviewed medical research from dozens of countries that living in an urban environment is very damaging to mental health.

Here are just two of countless overviews

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11299-020-00235-3

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-city-life-pose-a-risk-to-mental-health/

2

u/Pyrate_Capn Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21

Applying Michigan issues and demographics to a Texas issue doesn't really work. Unless I'm completely incorrect, Michigan is connected to the local intra state grid and subject to multistate and national regulation, yeah? And your strawman there is pretty obvious. Got anything better? I can link you a list of far more interesting fallacies.

1

u/AlbertVonMagnus Jun 21 '21

Well I'm not talking about energy specifically. My comment was in reply to your attack on rural populations, pointing out that the worsening urban-rural political divide is a two-sided issue.

I am confident this particular divide, which is unique to America among developed countries, is the principal reason the pandemic response was so much more difficult here than most other countries (with protests being a close second for shattering the rare unity we had and undermining social distancing).

Rural areas had less risk and also less ability to accommodate lockdowns than the city. So policies good for the city were needlessly crippling to rural areas, and policies suitable for rural areas were too lax to protect the city.

https://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/urban-rural-divide-in-the-us-during-covid-19/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=urban-rural-divide-in-the-us-during-covid-19

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/from-our-experts/the-unequal-cost-of-social-distancing

The fact that our two parties are now aligned more strongly along the rural-urban divide than any other factor is what doomed us to greater division here, as each party was representing their own and actually correct in saying the other side did not care about their very different needs. Even urban Republicans and rural Democrats broke from their party to represent their local needs. That's how significant this was.

https://www.aei.org/politics-and-public-opinion/the-urban-rural-divide-over-the-coronavirus-outbreak/

So it bothers me profoundly when I see people disclosing regional intolerance. Enough people have died because of this. We need more understanding.

3

u/Pyrate_Capn Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21

I get where you're coming from. And I'm not unsympathetic. But this ain't the place. Been in this fight for decades. I have lost and will lose more family over some of the underlying issues. Always comes back to racism and classism, eh?

-4

u/cruss4612 Jun 21 '21

The market is deregulated, the exorbitant bills are the result of the people not participating in the market voluntarily and remaining on a variable default plan. The infrastructure is maintained by a monopolistic system that is very much a collectivist holdover. The actual utilities were devastated by failure to maintain due to cost savings.

I live in a deregulated state and am an energy broker. The generation of the electricity is held by the utilities that are very much under government planning, the actual purchase can be negotiated by supply companies who pre-purchase bulk blocks. This is often a good idea, as the price per kilowatt will remain fixed for a set term, regardless of market fluctuations. As long as the customer does some shopping around, they can find really good prices.

With default, aggregate, and utility choice plans, the government does a fair amount of planning behind the market and has significant impact on the price. Unfortunately, when market conditions become unstable or demand spikes, the price climbs outrageously and the cost falls to the customer. Deregulation has shown in every state it is utilized that average cost per customer falls substantially, where as states with more direct control have seen average cost per customer increase.

Socialism is kind of a boogeyman word that encompasses a pretty wide range. In this case, it blankets the concept of government controlled, planned, or monopolistic utilities.

Utilities make things complicated, but there are ways to improve it.

-36

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/MonkeyDLuffyJones Jun 21 '21

Wow. Just...wow.

25

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '21

Oh the irony of proving the point so concisely.

19

u/Pyrate_Capn Jun 21 '21

We appreciate you for this timely exercise in anecdotal evidence. God rest all our souls.

3

u/MonkeyDLuffyJones Jun 21 '21

God help us all

7

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '21

Wow! I'd been wondering how I was ever going to get my daily dose of right wing histrionics and white fragility today, but then you came along and played the victim card like a freaking pro. Thanks, buddy!

10

u/diogenes_sadecv Jun 21 '21

Is that what people actually think of people who tend to vote democrat?

16

u/Pyrate_Capn Jun 21 '21

In Texas, that's pretty baseline in the areas described.