Tag Archives: David Roberts

Who’s Behind This Anti-California-Ruling Media Blitz?

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: David Roberts, aka Dr. Vox, penned an article that essentially spent 1,000 words arguing for and against California’s “all three-story houses must have solar” ruling, only to end up with a shruggy emoji to say, “Who knows how it will go?”

  • Since the article itself offers little in the way of serious argument (it’s a wordy listicle), I want to focus instead on the media blitz that has produced pieces like this.
  • It will be interesting to see when it comes out – and it will – who is behind the slew of negative coverage of the decision.

    • California ruling

    SolarWakeup’s View:  For whatever reason, the California Energy Commission’s decision to require all new three-story (or fewer) homes to have solar on them has unleashed something of an unexpected backlash, even in unexpected places.

    It even showed up at the Center for American Progress panel on climate change that I wrote about earlier, when Amy Harder asked climate activist Mustafa Ali if the California ruling would be a good idea for the low-income communities with which he works (he said it depends on the structure of the law).

    Leaving aside the fact it only applies to new homes, what the heck was the point of the question? Couldn’t everyone benefit from lower electricity bills?

    [wds id=”3″]

    And see, that’s the kind of digression on which opponents of the ruling, who are currently lurking around just out of sight but who are pushing this anti-solar narrative nevertheless, want solar advocates to focus. It’s like a blitz in the NFL: the goal is to overwhelm the blocking scheme with so many pass rushers that the one person they should be focused on gets through to sack the quarterback.

    I believe the current anti-solar blitz, focusing on the California ruling, is designed to distract from how revolutionary and visionary the idea is and how it could become more prevalent across the country if the California ruling succeeds (which it will) in lowering carbon emissions and making life healthier for the state’s citizens.

    So let’s not get distracted, OK, Dr. Vox? I know you just want to help, but allowing yourself to be distracted by the big shiny bauble the anti-solar crowd is waving in your face is NOT helpful.

    More:

    California will require solar panels on all new homes. That’s not necessarily a good thing. (Editor’s note: It’s almost UNIVERSALLY a good thing.)

    Panel Says We Will Win The Climate Change Battle (Their Mouths To Universe’s Ears)

    Republicans v. Democrats: Who’s Installing More Solar?

    By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

    What Happened:A recent study by an outfit called Priceonomics reports that Republicans in California have installed more solar than Democrats.

  • While the study found that Republicans in the state have installed solar at a 5 to 1 ratio may surprise some, the study itself has some methodological flaws that make it impossible to generalize its findings beyond California.
  • It also has a couple of “Well, duh” conclusions, too.

    • study

    SolarWakeup’s View:  When you’re deciding what conclusions you can draw from any given set of data, one of the first questions you should ask yourself is: “Is this data generalizable?” If not, it may not invalidate the study – but you should be hesitant about making any grand claims about it, either.

    Such is the case with a study touted by Priceomomics, which reaches the conclusion that despite what you might think, Republicans install more solar than Democrats. OMG if true, right (not really, but you’ve already gone this far on the journey with me, so let’s keep going)?

    Well, the truth, as it often is, is far more complex and complicated than the study would have you believe. While the data is interesting, here are some cautions:

    [wds id=”3″]
  • Are CALIFORNIA Republicans really representative of Republicans across the country at this point? Isn’t it fair to say they are their own brand, much like California Solar & Storage Association is no longer associated with the national lobbying group? If so, it might make sense that there’s more solar in this group than is applicable across the country.
  • Solar used to be the province of the well-to-do. While that’s certainly changed in the past five years, it makes sense that those with more money have solar while those with less money do not. (Wait until community solar really takes off over the next five years and then call me.)
  • The idea that solar is a Republican or Democratic issue is a bit silly in any case, given that around nine out of every 10 Americans say they support more solar development.

    • And then there’s this:

    Our analysis shows that households’ decision to go solar is not driven by political affiliation. Instead, people who live in areas that are sunny, dry, and less dense tend to install solar panels at higher rates. And in California, the country’s top state for solar, that means you’re more likely to see solar panels in Republican bastions than Democratic strongholds.

    Really? That’s your conclusion? That’s a lot of words to spend on a conclusion I could have told you without doing a lick of study. I mean….for reals.

    One out of one authors of this piece say go ahead and read the study, but don’t leave your skepticism at its mother’s house, especially if you’re trying to spot national solar trends.

    More:

    Are Republicans or Democrats More Likely to Go Solar?

    Americans Tell Gallup: Develop More Solar, Please

    @DrVox On Climate Policy: “Go As Hard And Fast As Possible, Forever And Ever. Amen.”

    By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

    What Happened: I’ll tell you all what: David Roberts, aka Dr. Vox, knows how to capture your attention. Last I saw him, he was claiming battery storage had a “dirty secret,” about which we, well…you might say we disagreed. But he’s back, and this time I agree with him.

  • The key takeaway: “So the only rule of climate policy that really matters is: go as hard and fast as possible, forever and ever. Amen.” (As a retired Catholic, I couldn’t resist adjusting the punctuation a bit.)
  • In today’s piece, Dr. Vox discusses how humanity can save itself from the scourge of climate change with a four-point plan, followed aggressively.
    • Vox

    What our world will look like not that long from now (in the grand scheme of things) if we don’t attack climate change aggressively, like yesterday.

    SolarWakeup’s View:  Hey, when Dr. Vox is right, he’s right.

    David Roberts, also known by his Twitter handle @drvox, penned an overview article today on three recent studies on climate change and discussed ways humanity might save Earth from actually becoming the burnt-out hellscape so many people already think it is.

    First, Roberts dispenses with the idea that we can simply wait for carbon extraction technologies – technologies that will manage to capture carbon from the air and bury it – to become a thing. Right now, those technologies aren’t even in the infant stages, and we simply can’t wait. Failure, as they say, is not an option.

    [wds id=”3″]

    Here are the four strategies Roberts, based on his reading of three different studies, believes can help save Earth from the human race:

  • Radically increase energy efficiency.
  • Radically increase renewable energy. (obviously my personal favorite)
  • Electrify everything.
  • Then maybe some minor carbon capture work.

    • The whole piece is a fascinating read, but I can’t emphasize enough the most important part of Roberts’ article, the phrase all of us climate warriors should have tatooed on the inside of our left arm:

    “So the only rule of climate policy that really matters is: go as hard and fast as possible, forever and ever. Amen.”

    Amen.

    More:

    What genuine, no-bullshit ambition on climate change would look like

    Nice Headline, Doctor – But That Doesn’t Make It True

    Nice Headline, Doctor – But That Doesn’t Make It True

    By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

    What Happened:Ah, ya gotta love drive-by hit pieces led by tricky, click-bait headlines, don’t you (you don’t, and you SHOULDN’T)?

  • Vox ran an article (which you no doubt saw, given how many of you clicked on it) that implied somehow battery storage was bad for the electrical grid, headlined “Batteries have a dirty secret.”
  • Then, in the subhead, David Roberts, aka “Dr. Vox,” asserts that the actual deployment of batteries increases carbon emissions.
  • OMG, if true, right? Well, as you probably have already guessed, that’s not what the story says at all. Quelle surprise.

    • battery storage

    SolarWakeup’s View:  There are times when I kinda hate my profession. And articles like that by David Roberts, who implies he’s a doctor on Twitter (and may well be), this morning in Vox are some of those times.

    Under a headline “Batteries have a dirty secret,” Roberts implies that somehow, battery storage is bad for the environment. I’m sure he knows better, but he’s hoping you won’t (and there are a lot of average Americans out there who won’t).

    [wds id=”3″]

    Of course, once he’s got you sucked in by the click-bait headline, he can say whatever he wants. And what he wants to tell you is that in a fossil-fuel based electricity-generation system, battery storage can increase carbon emissions because the energy they’re storing is from fossil-fuel based electricity generation.

    Oh. Is this really…debatable? Is this…an argument we have to have? Isn’t it a pretty well-accepted maxim that if you put garbage in, you are going to get garbage out? (Yes. Yes it is.)

    He bases his entire premise on a study of current battery storage installations, which does find that to an extent – in places where solar and other renewables aren’t prevalent – battery storage stores energy from dirty fuel plants and therefore doesn’t do anything to cut back on fossil fuels and, in some cases, increases them.

    But to make the argument that battery storage is dirty (a premise, I should note, Roberts himself debunks in the article with a wink and a nod as if to say, “See what I did there?” Yeah, I see you, David, and I thumb my nose in your general direction), you have to accept another idea: Electricity generation is forever preserved in amber as it is today. In other words, we will never have enough renewables on the grid to change the unvirtuous cycle he describes.

    Which is, of course, nonsense at its core.

    I’m not going to lie: Toward the end of the article, Roberts makes some good points about how battery-storage policy needs to change and actually offers some useful ideas. Most people, however, won’t read past the headline, subhead and maybe the first three paragraphs. And if they do that in this piece, then they’re going to walk away thinking battery storage is bad for the environment – a false narrative that could hurt the industry in the long run.

    More:

    Dave Roberts Lies About A Thing To Get You To Click On A Story (But I’m Not Going To Enable Him)