Texas passed its first renewable energy target in 1999, 3 years before California. The law was signed by, Gov. George W. Bush — you may recall he’s a Republican.
For my book, I interviewed Texan Republicans, Democrats, oil guys + clean energy pioneers. Texas was once leading in wind energy, with GOP support. Now we get lies, from the Gov on down on renewables. What happened?
Lessons from Short Circuiting Policy https://t.co/KtxaBci5oC 🧵
Texas passed its first renewable energy target in 1999, 3 years before California. The law was signed by, Gov. George W. Bush — you may recall he’s a Republican.
The "bill he signed in 1999 will make Texas the country’s largest market for renewable energy by 2009."
https://t.co/T4dKZ5qGnA
It was sponsored by Republican state Senator Troy Fraser and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry.
https://t.co/c9vnjyvn4i
What happened over the past 15 years?
https://t.co/jp3EqyORuu
They maintain GOP discipline by threatening Republicans who support renewables or climate action with lost money and primary challengers. Over time, this shifts the party.
https://t.co/W8L5yqDgOJ
We might expect a similar result after the lies perpetuated over the past week.
In the early 2000s, California faced severe power outages. As a result, Gov. Gray Davis lost a recall election. If I were Gov. Abbott, I'd be worried.
If you enjoyed this thread, check out my book, Short Circuiting Policy!
https://t.co/MLrDKMQI4C
More from Culture
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
