This article could have been summarized in a sentence. I take issue with the ending "conclusion"<p>> I don’t know whether we should tax the wealthy, just print up money, raise corporate taxes, hit the middle class or what<p>The author spends a paragraph explaining that green initiatives are a regressive tax, then another paragraph explaining that wealthy people are disproportionately responsible for CO2 emissions, then just says "jeez I don't know what to do..."<p>I don't know, maybe a progressive tax system on energy consumption? The largest energy consumers can pay for more of the grid renovations than the people who use less.<p>I don't see any real value in this article. It spends most of its time meandering and belaboring a point that most people are already aware of, without spending any time considering solutions. It is unserious at best and lite-propaganda at worst.
Maybe Granny would be paying less for their energy if this author hadn't been talking rubbish about renewables for the last decade?<p>Pro-fossil populism was a bad look a decade ago, now when the cost of renewables is clear to all but the most reality-resistant, it's the worst look possible.
What an offensively stupid article.<p>Completely ignores the costs "granny" is forced to bear when her house floods or burns from every increasing severe hurricanes and wildfires. Ignores the costs to "granny" when an entire grid collapses for multiple days in a resource-rich area (Texas, last year). Completely ignores that "granny" benefited her whole life from profligate use of cheap fossil fuels that now everyone else is suffering due to their emissions and pollution.<p>Fossil fuels aren't cheaper for society, they're more expensive. They're just cheaper for the person burning them at the expensive of the other people who get harmed. I care more about the "granny" who's going to die from fossil fuels than the "granny" who has to pay an extra 5 cents for solar.
Boy, that's a long-winded way to say "think of the children!" But here's the money shot:<p><i>Rules and regulations, however, constrain options and choices.</i><p>Uh, huh. "We in the utility industry are always thinking about ways to benefit the consumer, and not the bottom line! And those pesky regulations keeps us from bringing only the best options to the consumers!" IOW, "don't tell <i>us</i> what to do! We know what's best for consumers." followed by the mental image of your grandmother shivering in the cold because of solar panels. Not like those toasty warm folks in Texas with their free-market energy markets.<p>I think it's a reasonable discussion to be had, but the author of TFA isn't going to be the one have it with.
Nit: granny's CO2 is being listed as current output, rather than as an integral of the CO2 she's emitted and what contribution she's had to the current CO2 in the atmosphere now