Show Only... Charts / Google Maps / Maps / Photos

Topics Movement
Climate Change
Fossil Fuels
Natural Gas
Nuclear Power
Power Plants

Questions? Need an updated map? Email me

Climate of Complete Certainty

"Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power."

NYS Electric Generation by Source (GWh)

New York Electric Generation By Fuel Type, GWh dataset provides data on total electricity requirements and in-state generation for New York State in giga-watt hours. Sources of electricity include coal, natural gas, petroleum products, hydro, nuclear, waste, landfill gas, wood, wind, solar, and net imports of electricity.

Data Source: NYSERDA,

Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal

While this article doesn't make it clear, only 1 out of 3 coal jobs is in actual mining. 2 out of 3 coal jobs is in operating the power plants, most of which can relatively easily be converted to burn gas or other cleaner fuels.

Fossil energy generation has to go and with some redesigned infrastructure, can go. It's not going to be cheap or easy, but just because we are getting rid of one source of generation, doesn't mean that jobs will disappear. They'll just go to other sources of generation, because something has to keep the electrons flowing so the lights remain on.

I was hearing about President Trump’s tax reform idea and was thinking what would be the most effective, job creating tax proposal out there. I think it would be a carbon tax.

Right now, America does not tax fossil fuels based on their carbon content. President Bill Clinton once proposed taxing carbon using a “BTU tax” but the idea never really got off the ground. But that was 25 years ago, and if anything the climate crisis has gotten more urgent. At the same time, the tax code has gotten more complicated, picking winners and losers without much of a sense of fairness.

I really like the idea of a national carbon tax. Individuals and most businesses would not pay the carbon tax — the only businesses who would pay a carbon tax would be those who extract or import carbon products into America. Certainly it would be an expense to owners of coal mines and oil and gas wells — but those are a small fraction of the American economy. While it would mean consumers would pay higher gas prices and more for heating fuel — it could be offset by growing the economy by eliminating taxes on investing and saving.

I suggest the carbon tax be used to cut taxes on businesses and investors. One of the taxes which has bothered me to no end is the tax on capital gains and on most interest-bearing investments. It just doesn’t seem right that after working hard, and paying taxes — and doing the right thing to invest money into growing the economy — I should be hit with another round of taxes. Imagine if all investments were tax free, like municipal and most government bonds are. It would encourage millions of Americans to invest their money rather then spending it on consumption. Tax the fossil fuel-burning car, not the growth of the economy.

Tax-free investments would provide billions in new capital funding, rather then being blown on frivolous things like new cars or disposable toys. If people didn’t ever have to pay on investments, they would be much more likely to save for retirement or just a better tomorrow. And because investments would be tax-free, investors wouldn’t have to report their gains to governments. It would make taxation much simpler, as your taxing much fewer people — just the carbon fuel producers, and not the general economy.

A carbon tax would allow the government to replace the Clean Power Plant program with just a tax on carbon-rich fuels. It would discourage the use of the most-carbon intensive fuels, especially dirty coal. And as many of the most carbon-intensive industries are the most polluting, it could allow government to reduce the level of regulation on many polluters, especially if there was a dramatic drop on overall emissions over time when people move away from burning large quanities of coal and oil to make energy.

This is why support replacing the Capital Gains tax and the tax on interest-gaining investments with a Carbon Tax.

How Can The Colorado River Continue To Support 36 Million People In 7 States?

"One of the most remarkable chapters of your book has to do with something called Project Rulison in 1969, just, like, three weeks after Woodstock, when a nuclear weapon with more than twice the power of the Hiroshima bomb was used in a test to see if nuclear devices could be used basically for fracking, to break up rock and - you know, and release natural gas. How did you find out about this?"

Other Greenhouse games – Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide unlike carbon dioxide doesn't directly cause climate change, but it does have impacts on the atmosphere which can slow down the breaking down of climate changes gases, especially methane.

Carbon monoxide is more of a danger to urban areas, as it causes heart attacks -- and in high concentrations in enclosed location -- headaches and death.

Greenwashing The Obama Climate Legacy

"The first Obama Administration’s climate policy was largely indistinguishable from George W. Bush’s and it fought having to regulate greenhouse gases almost as hard as its predecessor. Only after the 2012 election did it show any appetite for actual emissions regulation, and by then it was mostly too little, too late. As I previously noted, the low priority Obama gave to climate issues makes his policy legacy fragile. While his second administration took some steps to reduce emissions, only about half of it will matter – and, as discussed below, even that may be outweighed by their mistakes."

Google Maps: Industrial Electricity Consumers Cents Per Kw/hr – January 2017

New York has some of the most expensive residential electricity in the country. But thanks to Niagara Falls and the Robert Moses Dam in Massena on the St. Lawrence River, our state has some of the cheapest power in the nation for industrial plants -- who often get discounted hydropower through the Power for Jobs and Recharge NY programs. Industrial consumers only paid 5.97 cents per kilowatt hour in New York -- much lower Penna's 6.96 cents, Indiana's 7.35 cents, Michigan's 7.38 cents and Ohio's 6.58 cents.

Data Source: Table 5.6.A. Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State, January 2017 and 2016 (Cents per Kilowatthour).