2021年2月23日 星期二

Burn, baby, burn

Why does the G.O.P. love fossil fuels?
Sleet, snow and ice shut down Dallas, Texas.Nitashia Johnson for The New York Times
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

The Texas electricity crisis was a terrible, deadly event. As I explained in today's column, it proved that extreme deregulation doesn't work — when even Senator Ted Cruz starts demanding that regulators rein in windfall profits, you know the game is up.

But while Cruz decrying profiteering and demanding price controls is quite the man-bites-dog story, I think it's also worth delving into the dog-bites-man story that came first. When Texas suffered catastrophic power outages — mainly because the gas-fired power plants that supply its surge capacity froze up, along with the pipelines that supply those plants with fuel and the wellheads that feed those pipelines — the immediate reaction of pretty much the whole right-wing political-media complex was to blame … wind power, and declare that the whole episode showed the folly of a Green New Deal.

The only dissenting opinion I've seen from that side comes from Larry Kudlow, who was Donald Trump's chief economist, and who blames the collapse of the Texas grid on … Joe Biden. No, I don't understand his logic either.

At some level this blame game wasn't surprising: Everyone knows that Republicans love fossil fuels and view A.O.C. as the devil incarnate. But why, exactly, do conservatism and the urge to burn the residue of prehistoric plant life go together?

ADVERTISEMENT

This wasn't always true. As recently as 1990 political contributions from the coal industry were split fairly evenly between the parties; West Virginia, now among the Trumpiest states in America, generally supported Democrats until 2000.

So what happened? First, over the course of the 1970s and 1980s Republicans became the anti-environmental party. This isn't quite the same thing as being a free-market party: Even if you believe in the virtues of markets, Econ 101 says that polluters should face financial incentives to curb emissions, in the form of either pollution taxes or marketable emission permits. But the idea of a free market with incentives to behave responsibly may be too subtle for a campaign slogan.

Also, politicians and political strategists generally believe — rightly, I think — in something I think of as the "halo effect." The party that wants less government tends to oppose any public intervention, no matter how justified, out of fear that it will legitimize a bigger role for government in voters' minds. To be fair, the party that wants more social spending tends to favor government programs for the same reason.

And here's the thing: Fossil fuels are, well, dirty. Coal is the worst, but even natural gas has its problems. It's not just the greenhouse gas emissions; burning fossil fuels releases particulates, mercury and other nasty stuff that hurts health and increases mortality.

ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats are more willing than Republicans to do something about that, which makes the fossil fuel industry favor Republicans. And that reinforces the difference between the parties, which leads to even more disparity in political support.

At this point, in fact, we seem to be reaching the end of a doom loop in which the G.O.P. has become a party of fossil fuels, by fossil fuels, for fossil fuels. In the 2020 election cycle the oil and gas industry gave only 16 percent of its contributions to Democrats; the coal mining industry gave just 4 percent.

The problem Republicans and their fossil friends face is that they're on the losing side of history. Incredible technological progress in renewable energy has made coal almost completely uncompetitive, with oil not far behind and gas seeing the writing on the wall.

Hence the craziness of the recent attack on wind power. It wasn't just routine blame-shifting and disinformation; it was also, in a sense, a cry of despair.

ADVERTISEMENT

Quick Hits

The Texas electricity market isn't laissez-faire. In fact, it takes a lot of regulation to make those "free" markets possible.

El Paso went its own way, and avoided the worst.

People have been asking me whether there's anything in Texas like the market manipulation in California 20 years ago. I haven't seen any evidence, at least so far.

Remember when Rick Perry tried to force utilities to keep burning coal?

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Music

A bit of beauty for the dayYouTube

Norwegian bluegrass, a cappella.

IN THE TIMES

What a Texas Plumber Faces Now: A State Full of Burst Pipes

Since a winter storm and hard freeze swept through the state last week, knocking out power and heat, homeowners have swamped plumbers with urgent repair calls.

By Allyson Waller and Mark Felix

Article Image

How Texas' Drive for Energy Independence Set It Up for Disaster

Texas has refused to join interstate electrical grids and railed against energy regulation. Now it's having to answer to millions of residents who were left without power in last week's snowstorm.

By Clifford Krauss, Manny Fernandez, Ivan Penn and Rick Rojas

Article Image

Why Top Economists Are Citing a Higher-Than-Reported Jobless Rate

The official rate stood at 6.3 percent in January, but using an expanded metric, Fed and Treasury officials say it's closer to 10 percent.

By Jeanna Smialek

Article Image

Why Texas Republicans Fear the Green New Deal

Small government is no match for a crisis born of the state's twin addictions to market fixes and fossil fuels.

By Naomi Klein

Article Image

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年2月22日 星期一

On Tech: A city with Amazon at the center

Plus, when to replace your gadgets.

A city with Amazon at the center

Jérôme Dubois

What happens when Amazon becomes a fixture in America's towns and cities?

Erika Hayasaki wrote a recent article for The New York Times Magazine about Amazon's influence on the Inland Empire, a region east of Los Angeles where the company is the largest private employer. More than 40,000 people in the region handle or deliver Amazon orders, about double the number from two years ago.

I spoke with Hayasaki, a professor in the Literary Journalism Program at the University of California, Irvine, about what she learned researching Amazon workers in the region and what the effects are — good and bad — when Amazon comes to town.

Shira: What made you interested in writing about Amazon in the Inland Empire?

Hayasaki: My family moved to a city there called Eastvale in 2018, and Amazon's presence was immediately apparent. Near the Costco, you see twin giant Amazon warehouses with more than 6,000 employees in total. You see Amazon semi-trucks and new homes with Amazon products like Alexas built in.

Officials at the nearby Ontario International Airport showed me runways that were under construction partly for Amazon merchandise flying in and out. We see Amazon all the time as shoppers, but it's different here. I started to talk with workers about what it was like for them.

What did Amazon warehouse employees tell you that they like and don't like about their jobs?

They appreciate that Amazon offers them health and retirement benefits — and that they have jobs at a time when many others have lost work.

ADVERTISEMENT

The biggest concern that I heard was safety. That's not new, but when the pandemic hit it was intense to hear workers' fears for their lives.

And some Amazon-related jobs are precarious. I rode around with an Amazon delivery driver who also worked for an app-based delivery company. His girlfriend did, too. They were stringing together multiple forms of income for themselves and their five children. It's not an easy way to live.

Amazon is creating many new jobs with starting pay that's more than double the minimum wage. Isn't that good?

Most of the workers I spoke with would say that Amazon can do better given the company's financial success. I heard workers ask why the company increased pay by $2 an hour but only temporarily. They're working harder than ever and it's still a pandemic.

For Eastvale, what has been the effect of having Amazon there?

City officials said that they appreciated the new jobs Amazon created, but they were fearful that automation might slowly eliminate the work. And because of the way state taxes are structured, the city is getting less tax revenue than it expected from Amazon's presence.

ADVERTISEMENT

City officials also said there's a lot of wear and tear on roads with so many Amazon vehicles. And with so many people at the Amazon site, it generates a lot of calls to police and emergency services for worker injuries or just fender benders. That's a pull on local resources.

Your article discussed "company towns" — cities like Hershey, Pa., that were once dominated by a single employer. Is Eastvale like that?

No, unlike company towns of the past, Amazon doesn't control housing for employees or replace functions of the government. But in the Inland Empire there are some elements that are reminiscent of company towns. One that struck me was an Amazon career program for high school students. People spoke highly about it, but others in the community raised questions about teenagers being put on a pathway to an Amazon job.

Shoshana Zuboff, a professor emeritus at Harvard Business School, told me that Amazon goes beyond the company town phenomenon. It's a company world. Given Amazon's presence in our lives, its size and how many people the company employs, that's a combination unlike anything we've seen before.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

TIP OF THE WEEK

When to replace your gadgets

Are you wondering how old is too old for that television set or internet router in your living room? The New York Times personal technology columnist Brian X. Chen explores when to consider replacing four of the important gadgets in our lives.

I'm an advocate for making your technology last as long as you possibly can. But at some point, it's time to replace your phone, computer, TV set and internet router. It's hard to know when, though. Here is a cheat sheet for when to consider retiring your current models:

Smartphones: It's wise to replace your device when your phone can no longer receive operating system updates. When that happens, some of your favorite apps may stop working properly, and you won't easily be able to get security enhancements that protect you from attacks and malware.

Apple iPhones typically can get software updates for five years, and Android phones normally get software updates for two to three years.

Computers: Similarly, when your computer can no longer get important software updates, it's probably time for it to go. But Windows and Mac PCs tend to get these updates for far longer than smartphones — from nine to 15 years. (I'm still rocking an iMac that I bought nine years ago.)

Within that time frame, though, other parts like your hard drive, laptop battery or screen may fail. When repair costs add up to become impractical, it may be time to look for a newer model.

Television sets: You could hold on to a TV for decades if you don't mind missing out on improvements in video quality. But also think about what connects to your set. If your TV is so old that you can't plug in modern devices that you want to use — video game consoles, streaming video sticks and audio equipment — then it's probably time to retire it.

Internet routers: Your Wi-Fi hub is a critical piece of infrastructure that affects everything that connects to your home internet. Generally, new Wi-Fi technologies hit the market every five years. If your router is more than five years old, you'll want to get on the latest Wi-Fi technology, because you'll probably see meaningful improvements to speed and coverage.

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

Hugs to this

Beware the terrifying sight of … a cat riding a Roomba pirate ship. (Turn the sound on for this one. And thanks to my colleague Erin McCann for tweeting this.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018