The current state of climate policy discussion furnishes more tentative confirmation of J. Budziszewski’s democracy-sustaining claim that people are logical, slowly. As long as the Green New Deal was some distant and abstract vision it was easy to rhapsodize about its walls of jasper and streets of pure gold, like transparent glass. But once objects in calendar proved closer than they appear, and practical matters intruded, we increasingly read that, for instance, the City of Vancouver abruptly dumped its ban on natural-gas heating and cooling systems in new homes because it was a hugely expensive pain in the furnace.

In reporting on Vancouver’s about-face, the Globe & Mail described it as “a surprise move to reverse a key part of its climate-action efforts”. As if building-code decisions by the 8^th-most-populous city in Canada were really about to change the weather if only they persisted. Canada supposedly produces about 1.5% of annual human greenhouse gases, so try to guess what rounding error comes from HVAC in new construction in Vancouver.

Still, it didn’t matter when Net Zero in 2050 was safely waaaaay off over the horizon. You could say stuff about us all having to do our bit, or setting an example, and preen about being a global leader. But when it turns out that BC Hydro can’t cope, and so “Builders are having to put in pad-mounted transformers, at a cost of $50,000 per project, as part of the new, more robust electrical systems needed”, well, it’s a different story. (Especially as at time of writing, in late July 2024, the forecast high temperature in Vancouver was 20C, not exactly heatstroke territory.)

It’s not just Vancouver. Canary Media unexpectedly, but commendably, just wrote “The US nuclear industry is stuck. Can this startup get it rolling again?” We have long claimed that support for nuclear is a sanity test for committed foes of fossil fuels, and more people are taking the test and more are passing it. Indeed, the email teaser rhapsodized:

“The U.S. nuclear energy fleet is still the mightiest in the world in spite of the industry’s moribund state. Development has slowed to a crawl in recent decades as cost overruns and missed deadlines have become commonplace. A new startup has a plan to get the industry back on track – Eric Wesoff has the details in today’s lead piece.”

Egad. Mighty, no less. The piece contains a few items that are a bit questionable, including enthusiasm for China’s nuclear program. But also this surprising mix of sand and gold:

“In the mid-2000s, the U.S. entered a drilling and fracking boom that increased the domestic supply of cheap natural gas. Over the same period, the costs of wind and solar power plunged, and more recently, lithium-battery-based energy storage has fallen. These inexpensive energy sources, along with pushback from nuclear opponents, resulted in U.S. nuclear companies losing deals to supply power in competitive markets. But a new driver for building American nuclear power has emerged: the expected surge in baseload energy demand catalyzed by the rise of AI, a revitalization of domestic manufacturing, and the electrification of everything. U.S. electricity load growth is now expected to grow by 4.7 percent over the next five years, double the forecast from 2022, according to grid planners.”

That AI issue has been looming increasingly over various dismissals of the need actually to get a lot more electricity while shutting down generation. And while we’re tempted to observe that economic modeling is about as good as the climate kind when the forecast load growth can double in just two years, we’re also pleased to see that whoever’s doing the modeling is increasingly feeding in real recent numbers not the pretend ones that might make it all seem easy. And so it’s time to get nuclear cranked up.

The more practicalities intrude on the discussion the better, we say. And so we’re also pleased to read in Blacklock’s Reporter that:

“Solar panels pose a ‘significant pollution risk,’ the [Canadian federal] Department of Public Works said yesterday. Landfilling of used panels too costly to recycle will see toxic chemicals leach into groundwater, it warned.”

It’s not surprising that Blacklock’s is aware of the problem and willing to discuss it. But it is both surprising and encouraging that a Canadian federal department would do so. They’re actually trying to make things happen, not just imagining what could be, unburdened by what has been. And when you do that sort of stuff, well, things get practical in awkward ways. In this document, Solar Panel Recycling:

“‘The volume of end of life solar panels will grow which will result in significant pollution risks,’ the department wrote in a notice to contractors. ‘In fact the Government of Canada already utilizes solar panels in seven different locations across the country and in more than five missions around the world.’”

Which is just peanuts. But if they force them on millions of households imagine the difficulties. Recycling them isn’t easy:

“‘Separating those materials and uniquely recycling them is a complex and expensive process as opposed to the cheap method of discarding the entire panel into a landfill,’ it said. ‘These individual materials are often part of the devices that Canadians use every day such as smartphones and computers.’”

There’s still a bit of pie-in-the-sky:

“‘As such, recycling these materials should provide significant economic, environmental and social benefits,’ said Recycling. ‘This challenge will be seeking recycling solutions for solar panels at any time during their entire lifecycle.’”

Um yeah, it will be. Whereas if it really was economically beneficial entrepreneurs would be bidding for the stuff not fleeing from it. But at least you noticed.

In this category of weirdly encouraging practical commentary we’re even going to include an item from Heatmap saying:

“This Is the Worst Possible Moment for an Offshore Wind Debacle/
Vineyard Wind has given offshore opponents some powerful new ammunition.”

Frankly it’s pretty obvious that the debacle in scenic Martha’s Vineyard, longtime refuge of the progressive elite, was a PR disaster and with good reason. But when people actually face the obvious, as Orwell said, it can represent a big step forward. And the piece takes it resolutely:

“Vineyard Wind’s turbine blade failure couldn’t have come at a worse time for offshore wind. The industry is still dealing with the high inflation and supply chain issues that turned 2023 into a parade of horribles. Now opponents to American offshore wind – most prominently former president Donald Trump – are one election away from storming the gates of the federal bureaucracy. We don’t know yet whether the Vineyard Wind blade breakage was a fluke or the result of a problem with the blades themselves, but that hasn’t stopped critics of offshore wind from shouting about it – and with fiberglass still washing up on Nantucket beaches, they’re tough to ignore.”

They then give it a feeble go with:

“Major errors like blade failures are incredibly rare, but – like the risk of whale injuries – are precisely the sort of negative externality activists have had a tendency of magnifying when fighting offshore wind.”

However we don’t actually know how rare they are because it’s a new technology, spreading rapidly thanks to government subsidies. What if it turns out they’re not?

The Wall Street Journal editorialized snidely that:

“There’s no such thing as clean energy, as the liberal gentry on Nantucket are learning after an offshore wind turbine blade snapped and littered beaches with debris. Somehow the uproar among progressives is more muted than after an oil spill or train derailment.”

But it was quite the mess, with truckloads of debris just from part of a blade. Moreover “Natural gas power will have to ride to the electric grid’s rescue again.” And here’s the big issue:

“This is the second major break in recent months involving GE Vernova’s Haliade-X turbines, which are nearly as tall as the Eiffel Tower. Another blade broke on a turbine off the coast of England. GE Vernova and Siemens Gamesa have also struggled with defective onshore turbines, with some toppling over and requiring expensive repairs.”

If such a gruesome mess can result from part of one blade falling off, what if an entire turbine shattered? Or an entire wind farm? It would be a PR disaster because it would be an ecological one, not to mention a power-generation one.

The Guardian nevertheless chortled that:

“Offshore wind to power 20m homes within five years, Starmer to pledge/
Scheme will use taxpayer money to develop parts of seabed owned by the royal family”

Right. A government outfit called “Great British Energy” will:

“be given £8.3bn of public money over the course of the parliament to invest in green technologies, with a target to develop an extra 20-30GW of offshore wind power through a tie-up with the crown estate. Ministers are hoping that investment will help persuade companies to spend another £60bn in an attempt to hit the government’s target of decarbonising Britain’s power sector by 2030.”

Or crumble and fall into the sea. But of course an outbreak of prudence and sanity would have to get pretty severe before it reached the Guardian. And it can be encouraging long before that point.