When Gov. Glenn Youngkin released his energy plan last week in Lynchburg, Democrats and left-leaning environmental groups reacted exactly the way you’d expect them to: They criticized it.
That’s because Youngkin is not convinced that solar and wind can supply all of Virginia’s energy needs; he also likes natural gas and nuclear (he especially likes nuclear).
While Youngkin’s embrace of nuclear – especially his proposal for a small nuclear reactor in Southwest Virginia – was a surprise, it shouldn’t be surprising that a Republican governor isn’t nearly as all-in on renewables as Democrats are. So we wind up with two perfectly predictable things: a Republican governor who wants to back away from the strict provisions of the Clean Economy Act that mandates a carbon-free economy, and Democrats who think he’s retreating from a decarbonized future.
I do not profess to be an energy expert, so I will not weigh in on whether it’s practical to have a an electrical grid powered 100% by renewables. Those who do have opinions on both sides often come across as so passionate that it’s hard to tell how much is solid engineering and how much is simply belief.
I do, though, profess to be a modest expert on politics so that’s where I will confine my observations today – to the changing politics of energy.
I was struck by several things in Youngkin’s plan (and his speech that accompanied it).
The big one was what he didn’t say. He didn’t say anything about coal.
I’ve long been accustomed to Republican candidates coming to Roanoke and making a big deal about coal, which always seemed to reflect their geographical naivete as much as it did their energy policies. Yes, Roanoke grew up as a railroad town where lots of coal passed through. And yes, there are some companies in Roanoke that are tied to the coal industry in Southwest Virginia. By and large, though, Roanoke isn’t particularly interested in coal. For that, a politician needs to go a lot farther west.
We’re also only five years removed from Donald Trump vowing that he would “bring back King Coal.” I wrote then for The Roanoke Times that he would not, he could not, and I was right: Coal production in the United States declined under a coal-friendly president. That’s because the free market (granted, prodded by various regulations) was voting against coal. More coal plants shut down under Trump than during Barack Obama’s second term, according to E&E News, which covers the energy industry.
Despite that economic evidence, we still saw West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice plead for utilities to build more coal plants – and seemed shocked when the president of Appalachian Power, that state’s biggest utility, told him his company had no intention of building any.
Youngkin did not do any of these things. He didn’t extol coal. He didn’t call for building new coal plants. He didn’t call for keeping open the existing ones that are slated to close. I thought there might be some call to keep open Dominion Energy’s controversial Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center in Wise County, which environmentalists despise because it burns coal and is expensive, and which local legislators love because it’s a big employer in the region. He did not. (Disclosure: Dominion is one of our donors but donors have no say in news decisions; see our policy.) In fact,Youngkin didn’t say anything about coal – except for a brief mention that if Virginia doesn’t produce enough energy, then it will have to import electricity from other states that will burn coal, and that electricity will be more expensive. So, indirectly, Youngkin conceded that coal-fired electricity is more expensive than other sources, something that Trump or Justice or other Republicans haven’t dared to do.
Furthermore, the 29-page plan talks up how Virginia has achieved “significant carbon emissions reductions.” True, that comes in the context of saying those reductions came before the state joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – something Youngkin wants the state to withdraw from – but the point is here we have the Republican governor of a coal-producing state who a) doesn’t seem intent on trying to hold onto coal as an electricity source and b) is talking up emissions reductions as a good thing.
I fully understand why the critics are criticizing Youngkin’s plan over his enthusiasm for natural gas, but it’s still fascinating to see the political shift we’re witnessing here. Youngkin’s plan may seem retrograde to Democrats in 2022 but it’s not that different from what a Democrat might have presented in, say, 2014. I single out that year because that’s when Obama used his State of the Union address to praise natural gas. Yes, just eight years ago a Democratic president crowed that natural gas production was “booming.” That was also the year that the Mountain Valley Pipeline was proposed — and earned an endorsement from the state’s Democratic governor at the time, Terry McAuliffe (who had earlier endorsed Dominion’s proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which was later abandoned). This shows how much the politics of energy have changed. Nowadays, many Democrats have moved away from natural gas; they no longer tout it as a “bridge fuel,” as Obama did. Likewise, it wasn’t that long ago – the Trump administration, to be specific – that we had a Republican president who dismissed renewables as too expensive and impractical. The free market begged to differ, but rhetorically Trump routinely mocked solar and wind (and still does).
Youngkin does no such thing. He may not believe in solar and wind as much as Democrats do but he does seem to believe in them. In fact, in speaking with journalists in Lynchburg, Youngkin declared “we can be the leader in wind,” something we’ve sure never heard Trump say, even though it’s Republican states in the Midwest who are the leaders in the wind. (Kansas generates 43% of its power from wind, Oklahoma 35% and North Dakota 31%, according to Visual Capitalist.)The environmental community need not like Youngkin, or his plan, but they ought to at least declare a victory of sorts here: The conversation has changed. Instead of talking about whether we’ll have renewables, the question now is whether the grid will be 100% renewable or some lower percentage.
Youngkin has good reasons to like at least some renewable energy. This is a governor who comes out of the business community and likes to declare that Virginia is “open for business.” He took the stage in Lynchburg to the tune of Bachman-Turner Overdrive’s “Taking Care of Business.” This is a governor who revels in economic development announcements. And what do we see? Some of the biggest ones he’s announced involved renewable energy. The Lego Group intends to build a $1 billion factory in Chesterfield County that will employ 1,760 people. Lego also announced that the plant would come with an onsite solar park because the company intends the plant to be 100% carbon neutral. In short, no renewables, no Lego. Earlier this month, Youngkin was in Halifax County to announce that a North Carolina company will build the nation’s first titanium recycling plant – 108 jobs in a rural county is a big deal, reshoring a critical minerals supply chain is also a big deal (particularly for a governor who’s being touted as a presidential candidate). How does IperionX intend to power that plant? Renewables.
A politician who is disparaging of renewables these days is simply out of touch with the economic realities. That seems quite an achievement.
Youngkin should not be mistaken for a Green New Dealer by any means — he’s big on natural gas and nuclear, after all — but he has more in common with Green New Dealers than either side will want to admit: Both tout the economic benefits of innovation in the energy industry.
The philosophical essence of the Green New Deal is that the transition from fossil fuels to renewables will create jobs. (Yes, it will eliminate some others, so the challenge is whether the jobs gained will be in the same places as the ones that will be lost – that’s often the Green New Dealers’ Achilles Heel.)
Youngkin, though, is saying much the same thing from a conservative point of view. The one point he hammered home in Lynchburg last week was the need for innovation in energy technologies. He and Green New Dealers likely have different views about what kind of innovation they’d like to see. Youngkin’s plan, for instance, talks up carbon capture; many environmentalists see that as a distraction that’s both impractical and philosophically objectionable because it might prolong coal. Big picture, though, both sides are talking up how the free market (augmented by lots of R&D) will save us. I heard Youngkin being skeptical of an all-renewable future, and liking the certainty of electrical generation by natural gas and nuclear. But I sure didn’t hear him say we should stick with what we know. In fact, his plan specifically says “Virginia will need more clean energy technologies that can also support baseload generation.”
The day after Youngkin’s energy plan announcement, he announced plans for an energy research park in Wise County. The idea for that park predates Youngkin, but he got to be the one to announce it. We don’t know exactly what all this park will be doing (maybe nobody really knows, technology being what it is), but the immediate plan calls for the site to be used to test wind and solar technologies – and the battery storage that makes them practical for use when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. For a long time, coal country seemed resistant to anything that wasn’t coal. There’s been a sea change, though; we now have community leaders in coal country actively planning for a post-coal future, even if that means embracing the once-hated renewables. And we have a Republican governor championing this as a potential jobs creator.
This is how much the politics of energy have changed. We can still argue about the wisdom of Youngkin’s embrace of natural gas and nuclear but we ought to acknowledge that the context for that argument comes in a very different political environment than it once did. Do I dare say it? If this isn’t the liberal Green New Deal, it seems at least the conservative Partly Green New Deal.
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
