body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using x.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2024 X Corp.

To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark
View keyboard shortcuts

Post

Conversation

1/ Okay, it's time to weigh in on the permitting discussion. The letter from 118 climate scientists opposing the bipartisan EPRA bill is really upsetting and full of misinformation:

Quote

Daniel M Kammen

@dan_kammen

Oct 11

A Letter from 118 U.S. Scientists on the Climate Impacts of the Energy Permitting Reform Act TO: @SenateDems @SenateGOP @HouseDemocrats @HouseRepubs @MichaelEMann @350 @billmckibben @howarth_cornell @ultracricket @ClumpedIsotopes @Prof_FSultana @mzjacobson

Show more

Rate proposed Community Notes

4:54 PM · Oct 11, 2024

260.3K

Views

David Watson 🥑

Post your reply

2/ There is lots to disagree with here, but a few things need to be said: First, they bizarrely assert that

,

, and the other modelers don't model the impacts of combusting exported fossil fuels abroad.

3/ Even a cursory skim of the modeling reveals this to be totally false. Here's

(hint: *it's in the title*): rff.org/publications/i

4/ Second, the authors note that the restriction of a barrel of oil only results in half a barrel making it onto the global market (an effect

accounts for, though the actual best available science points to a somewhat lower number).

5/ This is bizarre, because *in the very next paragraph* they cite an analysis that, by its own admission, ignores this very substitution effect (and engages in multiple other forms of double-counting) in order to...

6/...make the preposterous claim that the IRA's climate benefits are more than outweighed by a handful of permits the Biden Administration gave to fossil fuel projects, which is--to be clear--insane.

7/ Third, they state that "[t]here is simply no evidence to date that bringing renewables online will hinder or arrest increased fossil fuel production." If that were true, plots like this would not exist!

8/ If their logic were extended, these climate scientists should oppose the IRA--by far the most significant climate bill *in history*--on the grounds that it also included modest requirements for leasing fossil fuels. On that, the authors are consistent, I guess? (see 5 above)

9/ In closing: climate misinformation is a real problem, and it's important to call it out, even (especially) when it comes from friends and allies. Decarbonization is hard and full of trade-offs, but if the authors of this letter had their way, emissions would increase.

Hi Jane -you worked in the White House, so can you explain to black and brown communities in the LNG sacrifice zones why it’s ok for the permitting bill to deregulate 86 years of congressional mandate to only allow gas exports that are “consistent with the public interest “

Tyson, I do not read the bill as doing this (on the public interest standard) and if it did I would likely not support it. Will dm you.

Hillsdale College

Ad

A movement is growing to change the way we elect our president. That’s why Hillsdale College is conducting a National Survey on Presidential Selection. Complete this survey to help us more clearly understand the views of mainstream Americans concerning this issue.

Begin your survey now »

From hillsdale.edu

Thank you, Jane. The “solution denial” coursing through this letter is as pernicious, ungrounded and morally outrageous as the science denial many of these same authors righteously derided for the last 20 years.

cc

re permitting :)

Arvind P. Ravikumar

Not to mention a large number signatories would fail a sophomore-level lifecycle emissions accounting class. This is tribalism at its worst.

The amount of renewables is irrelevant to climate change. Only fossil fuel emissions (& land use changes) matter, so we need policies that phase out—not increase—fossil fuel supply. If we phase out FFs, renewables will take their place & not just add to total energy supply.

@SpenceEnergyUT

Ideological Logrolling and Energy Permitting Reform | The Regulatory Review

From theregreview.org

I think the EPRA bill is being unfairly criticized by some climate scientists, it's time to look at the bigger picture and find common ground for meaningful climate action.

Big TY

for noting the many errors here. Policymakers need solid analysis when evaluating grand bargains like EPRA. RFF and Princeton delivered. Their work merits care & rigor in response. Policy to build the ENORMOUS clean system we need deserves serious thinking.

Bartleby, the Gigolo

Note: Some of the signatories are more interested in decolonial theory:

From Climate Coloniality to Climate Revolutions with Farhana Sultana

Perspectives in Global Development: Fall 2023 Seminar SeriesAbstract : The extremely uneven and inequitable impacts of climate change creates differential vu...

I'd love to see a fact-based rebuttal to the letter from 118 scientists. Misinformation shouldn't be the basis for policy decisions.

Automated

climate scientists crying over permits like they're gonna stop the bullish retardio wave

Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content