A Clash of Conservative Concerns
Texas opts for Big Government to protect fossil fuels and the F-150 Lightning electrifies America's iconic gas guzzler
Everything’s Bigger in Texas
On Tuesday May 18th, the Texas State Legislature passed and Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law House Bill 17 which prohibits Texan cities from implementing regulations barring methane gas (aka natural gas) from utility services or new construction. As reported by The Texas Tribune, this bill is a response to “what is happening on the West Coast” according to the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Joe Deshotel (D-Beaumont).1
What is happening on the West Coast is that cities and localities are being allowed to make their own energy decisions based on the interests and desires of their specific constituents. In some cities, this has resulted in climate action like the banning of methane gas in new construction and the blocking of new gas stations.
In contrast to the purported principles of small government and conservatism that Texas is oft presented as representing, the state government has decided that it knows best when it comes to energy decisions for each one of its counties, cities, and towns. A counter-point may be raised that the state government is simply ensuring that local governments do not attempt to take away choice from their constituents, a measure against local big government and small-scale authoritarianism. Though, this counter falls flat for two reasons.
Governmental Overreach
Firstly, it does not actually solve the problem of big government on part of the state. Local governments, just like state governments, are allotted certain powers and the utilization of those powers for the benefit of their constituents is their responsibility. If that means banning a certain substance, material, or energy source that the local government deems harmful to its constituents, then it is the responsibility of the local government to do so. The state stepping in and deciding that local leaders and representatives do not know best, that they cannot be allowed to take these steps in protection of their community, is unambiguously on the side of strong/large government on behalf of the state. It is inserting itself into the designated locality-constituent relationship to add extra rules on how that relationship is allowed to operate. This is exactly analogous to the scenario that is decried by conservatives of the federal government creating new laws to step in and dictate to states how they must act.
I should be clear that I am not classifying this kind of government action has categorically bad. There are many instances where such federal or state intervention is warranted. However, I want to emphasize the similarity between this kind of phenomena and one more readily condemned by many conservatives and those on the right. This bill will, in all likelihood, receive much less criticism than any instance of the federal government practicing the same kind of intervention. I surmise that this is likely because this instance of big government is in support of the fossil fuel industry, which conservatives are more likely to support maintaining and expanding. Proponents of small(er) government, if they wish to be consistent in their beliefs, should reject this bill and others like it just as they would reject any federal government law or regulation which limits state autonomy.
Just Bad Policy
Secondly, this counter fails to account for the fact that fossil fuel investment and involvement in new projects is against constituent self-interest, environmentally and, in most cases, economically, too.
A recent report by the International Energy Agency has laid out the roadmap to net-zero global emissions by 2050, the metric we should shoot for if we wish to limit warming to 1.5° C (the best case climate scenario). One of the major takeaways from this report is the need for “no new oil and gas fields approved for development… and no new coal mines or mine extensions…” While a regulation like HB 17 does not address cities attempting to limit oil/gas fields, the spirit is similar. A local government making the decision to exclude oil and gas in new developments is in line with the direction we as a globe must move, as outlined by the IEA report. New installments of fossil fuels must be curtailed if we are to reach net-zero by 2050.
The economic side of the equation is also often in support of such local action. The prices of solar and wind power have plummeted in recent years/decades and they continue to do so, even to the point of undercutting methane gas. A local government recognizing that certain energy sources are dated and unable to economically compete would, in fact, be culpable if it failed to act in prioritizing, or even mandating, the more economic option, in this case wind and solar.
Local governments are supposed to be able to support their constituents in more specific ways than larger governmental bodies because of their closer proximity and more limited scope of responsibility. A city is only responsible for those citizens who exist inside her limits. Often times, that responsibility includes making decisions which maximize constituent health and tax dollar. If Texan cities want to make these choices to better support their constituents, legislation from the state prohibiting them from doing so is governmental overreach, and it should be decried as such.2
The Anti-Prius is now an EV
The Ford F-150 is not only America’s best-selling truck, it is our best selling vehicle and has been for 44 consecutive years. It is a beacon of American car-love which has long since exited the solar system, let alone the planet, containing the line marked “excessive.” Our obsession with big, low-mpg vehicles and suburban life completely dependent on them is a topic for another day, but I will suffice to say that we simply do not have the need for 800,000 new truck beds every year.
Now having the context in which the F-150 is found, it is no surprise that it finds favor among conservatives.3 In contrast, the disdain, in certain circles, for electric vehicles is likely something everyone has observed, experienced, or at least heard of. Even in my last link, such sentiment as “hybrids dont count. they're speedbumps not cars” is readily found. So, now that America’s pickup is going green, what are we to expect?
I would wager that this leads to an increase in acceptance and favorable opinions towards electric vehicles. If the F-150 can turn electric and fulfill all the needs a usual Ford buyer has, it is almost certain that the negative connotations occasionally paired with EVs and hybrids shall dwindle.
That’s about all I got. The Ford story has a lot less meat about, at least in this angle. Perhaps its own highlight story is warranted, but in terms of conservative concern clash, the upshot is pretty straightforward. The Texas story is definitely big for the state, and other states which may follow suit, but localities can still choose the more economical and environmental options like wind and solar; they just can’t outlaw the use of methane gas or other fossil fuels. So, it is a setback, to be sure, but we still have a clear and accessible road to clean power in the state.
The Ford story could arguably be more impactful in that it is electrifying America’s most popular vehicle and also incentivizing all of the other vehicles in the market to electrify if they want to compete. The downstream effects of this added pressure could be big, and they really need to be, considering that IEA report I previously mentioned also found that EV sales need to grow to 60% of total vehicle sales (excluding semi’s) by 2030, and 100% by 2035. Yup, no new internal combustion engine vehicle sales by 2035. Now wouldn’t that be something.
It’s a Sunday and despite the ominousness of drought here in the west, the weather’s4 quite nice. My girlfriend just graduated college, so a big ‘ol congrats sent out to her. I’m still looking for work, but enjoying the time I get to spend with family and friends (especially as re-opening continues and vaccination rates rise) and to work on passion projects like this newsletter. Have a grand afternoon and evening!
Another possible motivation is Texas’ recent blackout and a concern that “consistent energy like methane gas should be favored over unreliable power like wind, and this legislation helps with that.” Such an assertion is rooted in falsehoods that I covered here.
And past the overreach, it really is just bad policy. Movements away from fossil fuels and methane gas need to happen now. The more buildings and homes built with clean power now, the fewer which must be retrofit and switched over later. Rest assured, if buildings are built to utilize methane gas, they will have to be switched over at some point.
Most of my links are not clicked on, so for anyone who does click on this link, I hope the comedic effect outweighs the lack of actual justification/sourcing. If it bothers you, conservativism correlates with suburban and rural living and so does truck ownership. F-150 is the most popular truck, I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this.
I’m a linguistic descriptivist and a native English speaker, so this conjunction is grammatical.