A REC is a Renewable Energy Certificate. It's basically an instrument to account for your production of renewable energy, added back to the grid. It depends on your electric company, but the gist of it is, when install solar on your house, your bill is reduced by the amount of excess energy you produce. In other words, your bill is cost shifted onto other customers, or the tax payers. However, this does not actually reduce carbon emissions, it just reduces the cost of your bill. Someday, if storage technology is invented(highly unlikely), then those panels will actually save GHGs. Until then, the increase in GHGs is due to the manufacturing of the panels.

If you want to reduce your carbon foot print, installing high efficiency appliances is a much better way.

It's no secret that just about every utility company has done everything they can to slow the progress of solar, especially in sun belt states like FL, NV, and AZ. Just read up on Florida's anti-solar laws passed by a governor who was a utility lobbyist or Nevada's utility-company-lawyer-turned-governor running Sunrun, the largest residential solar installer, out of NV.

My point was that if climate change really needs to be addressed, to the point Congress tells lobbyists to eff off, then an actual way forward that's not as ridiculous as AOC's Green New Deal and uses tech we currently have, would be to ensure that rooftop solar is as standard a piece of equipment for every building as HVAC, meet the rest of the power need with nuclear, and replace local commuter traffic with electric cars.

Yes.

IMO utilities should not be for-profit companies either. I'm no fan of big government but some key infrastructure items really belong in the public realm. Like roads, a government owner/manger could subcontract certain things out to control costs (routine Mx, plant operations, etc).

The same governor who banned state employees from using the term "climate change?"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...e13576691.html

What happens if grounding all aircraft becomes part of the climate solution. Are you okay about walking away, or do you wish for the airlines to lobby the government to prevent that.

The problem in recognizing climate change is going to have a profound effect, and require major sacrifices that no one wants to make personally. You can't just say, everyone in the oil and gas industry should lose their job, so I can keep mine.

As someone posted in a previous graph, most airliners have better MPG/passenger than cars.

Start tackling factory farming and a meat-based diets. That would have a greater impact.

More to the point of my post: Ordering your employees, including state scientists, not to use the term is Orwellian.

Wrong, there always needs to be competition. That's how efficiency happens and progress is made.

Unless of course you're big enough that you can sue or just straight up buy out and park their product so that you don't have to compete.

Yes, but if you believe the scientists, it is full stop on ALL carbon emissions within the next decade.

There is an actual phrase for this in economics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking