Tessera
Folgen

Manuel Salgado

@manuelsalgado.bsky.social

Environmental and climate scientist and environmental justice advocate. Texas A&M/University of New Mexico. Chicano son of immigrants and migrant farmers. Federal research manager for WE ACT (@weact4ej.bsky.social). Opinions my own.

2318 Posts1345 Follower772 Folgt
Erik Schlenker-Goodrich@riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h ago

“At least 26 senators, more than a quarter of the chamber, hold data center-linked investments … Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island whose data center investments total between $2.1 million and $8.6 million, takes the number one spot.” 👀

The 5 Senators—Including Maine's Susan Collins—With The Biggest Investments In Data Centers

Forbes examined financial disclosures for every sitting Senator. We found 26 Senators with at least $7 million in investments tied directly to the data center buildout, including Sheldon Whitehouse an...

forbes.com

Manuel Salgado@manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 2d ago

I would invite @dananuccitelli.bsky.social to move to Cancer Alley or the industrial areas of Houston if this is a trade off he is willing to make. I'm guessing they do not live in a community experiencing these levels of pollution but if this is truly how they feel they should act like it.

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich@riogranderift.bsky.social · 2d ago

"Some local environmental harms" is doing a bit of work, eh @dananuccitelli.bsky.social? Care to address your comment in context of Trump's 550+ attacks on public health & environmental safeguards? And the reality that this permitting deal would conspire w/those actions to compound harm?

Danny Cullenward@ghgpolicy.org · 2d ago

I thought this might be an exaggeration, but no! Despite all the talk of technology neutrality, it appears the permitting reform proposal would weaponize claims for federal damages — but in practice, only for fossil fuels.

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich@riogranderift.bsky.social · 3d ago

Insightful legal analysis of a highly problematic component of the Senate permitting deal (Sec. 1402) highly touted by bill proponents as a solution to Trump's War on Renewables but is in fact a major gift to all developers—in particular fossil fuels—that will hobble a future POTUS' climate action.

From attorney Matthew Littleton: "Section 1402 of the draft bipartisan permitting bill is deeply problematic. The apparent goal is to stop Presidents from imposing hard or soft bans (“pauses”) on development of certain types of energy resources. Whatever energy policy the next President pursues, however, the likely outcome of this provision is a massive public subsidy (hundreds of billions of dollars) for new fossil-energy projects, with little to no benefit for clean energy. Here’s why. Section 1402 authorizes suits by developers for money damages against the United States in any federal district court where part of the proposed project is located. A developer must allege that the government missed one statutory deadline to decide on its application for a permit, right-of-way, etc. It’s up to the judge when the agency’s review clock began (there’s often dispute over when the permit application is complete) and when it ends (there’s often dispute over the degree of environmental review required). So even if the government acted in good faith to meet what it thought was the deadline, the judge can decide there’s a delay. Next, the developer has to show a “pattern of disparate treatment,” meaning a substantial increase (as compared to the most recent 5 years) in the percentage of projects of this type that, in the judge’s estimation, were either delayed or “improperly denied.” Here’s where clean energy comes up short. Because the current Administration hasn’t moved those projects, an indefinite stall (including by a new President that continued it) would be no worse than the baseline. Lawsuits can’t be filed until late 2027, by which time the baseline will be dominated by Trump's practices."
Manuel Salgado@manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 3d ago

Bolts just flat out does an amazing job breaking down what you should be paying attention come election day. Really grateful to all the work these folks do.

Taniel@taniel.bsky.social · 3d ago

CONCLUSION: This is all in/from my cheat sheet to November's elections, so don't miss exploring and bookmarking it. And there's a lot more on the ballot across these states! So check your voter registration. And then check your sample ballot. boltsmag.org/whats-on-the...

Manuel Salgado@manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 3d ago

This blog from NRDC is excellent and makes the exact points that need to be made right now. Re: clean energy winning "Accepting that outcome would require me to disregard what is happening in plain sight..."

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich@riogranderift.bsky.social · 3d ago

This from NRDC was very helpful: "Past experience shows us that there is a lot of uncertainty in the world that even the smartest modeling and forecasting cannot capture." Uncertainty that has often favored fossil fuels. Our fates aren't written, folks. They are contested. This is why we fight.

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich@riogranderift.bsky.social · 3d ago

Insightful legal analysis of a highly problematic component of the Senate permitting deal (Sec. 1402) highly touted by bill proponents as a solution to Trump's War on Renewables but is in fact a major gift to all developers—in particular fossil fuels—that will hobble a future POTUS' climate action.

From attorney Matthew Littleton: "Section 1402 of the draft bipartisan permitting bill is deeply problematic. The apparent goal is to stop Presidents from imposing hard or soft bans (“pauses”) on development of certain types of energy resources. Whatever energy policy the next President pursues, however, the likely outcome of this provision is a massive public subsidy (hundreds of billions of dollars) for new fossil-energy projects, with little to no benefit for clean energy. Here’s why. Section 1402 authorizes suits by developers for money damages against the United States in any federal district court where part of the proposed project is located. A developer must allege that the government missed one statutory deadline to decide on its application for a permit, right-of-way, etc. It’s up to the judge when the agency’s review clock began (there’s often dispute over when the permit application is complete) and when it ends (there’s often dispute over the degree of environmental review required). So even if the government acted in good faith to meet what it thought was the deadline, the judge can decide there’s a delay. Next, the developer has to show a “pattern of disparate treatment,” meaning a substantial increase (as compared to the most recent 5 years) in the percentage of projects of this type that, in the judge’s estimation, were either delayed or “improperly denied.” Here’s where clean energy comes up short. Because the current Administration hasn’t moved those projects, an indefinite stall (including by a new President that continued it) would be no worse than the baseline. Lawsuits can’t be filed until late 2027, by which time the baseline will be dominated by Trump's practices."Part 2 from Littleton: "Next, the judge decides whether the developer’s permit, were the agency to grant it, would be subject to cancellation for violating federal law. The question seems to be whether there is a hypothetical permit the agency could issue that would survive judicial review. That’s a low bar, given the deferential standard of review applied to agency factfinding and “public interest” determinations. Section 1402 “entitles” a developer that wins its case to (1) “injunctive relief, as provided by applicable Federal law” (meaning an order that the agency decide on the application? issue the permit?); (2) attorneys fees and litigation costs; (3) “economic damages, including any costs associated with the applicable denial or delay, as the court determines appropriate” (what else is “included”?); and (4) “damages in an amount equal to not less than 50% and not more than 100% of the total reasonably expected cost of construction of the project.” The last of these four must be repaid if the project isn’t built; the developer keeps the rest of the money regardless. A single claim under Section 1402 could top the total amount (~$40b) the government has paid out in all Judgment Fund claims over the last decade. This provision puts judges in real control over energy policy through the power of the purse."
Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they)@doctorvive.bsky.social · 3d ago

The sooner the Democrats understand that there is no more free market, that growth and supply and demand has been incontrovertibly perverted by domestic anti-democratic politics, the better off we’ll be.

Kevin J. Kircher@kevinjkircher.com · 4d ago

"But who could possibly have predicted that Republicans would prioritize owning the libs by shredding their bill even if it meant killing factory jobs in red states so thoroughly gerrymandered that votes basically don't matter there"

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich@riogranderift.bsky.social · 4d ago

A reminder of the political instincts of the folks championing the permitting deal: they loved Trump’s appointment of Doug Burgum to the cabinet. And it is Doug Burgum who is the architect of Trump’s War on Renewables. Do not trust these people.

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich@riogranderift.bsky.social · 10mo ago

Petrostate politics. This is what happens when you embrace the "energy dominance" of fossil fuels. Remember, too, that the Abundance bros embraced Burgum. When Burgum was appointed, Yglesias said he was "a totally solid pick who'll do good things." And he wasn't alone.

Manuel Salgado@manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 5d ago

I mean if Yglesias wants to add in actual pollution regulatory actions to this bill I am 100% in support. But if we do a full accounting of how much CO2,NOx, PM, etc have been avoided by litigation or regulatory action I don’t think it’s going to make this tweet look great.

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich@riogranderift.bsky.social · 5d ago

Excuse me? AYFKM? Yglesias is gunning for a bill built on deregulatory theories that shuts down pathways to substantive mitigation of fossil fuels and other development. In short, processes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate harm.

Yglesias: "Something a little lost in the permitting discourse is we are not talking about substantive regulation of the pollution associated with burning fossil fuels *at all* here, the entire issue is pretextual litigation."
David Ho@davidho.bsky.social · 5d ago

I don’t think everyone realizes how bad things are for US science: For the fiscal year that just ended, the Trump regime withheld $1.4 billion from the National Science Foundation’s research budget, which is about 1/5 of its primary research budget.

National Science Foundation Diverted $1.4 Billion in Science Funds Mandated by Congress (Gift Article)

The move, affecting about one-fifth of the National Science Foundation’s primary research budget, is the latest sign of how the White House is asserting more control over grants.

nytimes.com

J. Mijin Cha@jmijin.bsky.social · 6d ago

I’ll also add that continually trying to pass a permitting reform bill that ignores EJ concerns is deepening the divide in the movement every time it comes up. Maybe we should stop doing that.

J. Mijin Cha@jmijin.bsky.social · 6d ago

I say this as a climate person, there is more than the energy transition. We don’t get to a just transition by ignoring environmental injustices and just transition is the only way forward. Otherwise, we’re just replicating the failures of fossil fuels. Please don’t have climate myopia.

Matthew Haugen@mjhaugen.bsky.social · last wk.

I haven't read the permitting reform bill yet (seems like there's some good stuff), but I want to once again suggest to fellow clean energy advocates that saying or implying that biodiversity, endangered species, & other non-climate environmental issues do not matter is both detrimental & incorrect

Arkady Martine | Dr. AnnaLinden Weller@byzantienne.bsky.social · 6d ago

Apropos of several things in recent news: If you want to have a confidential conversation via a video conferencing call, you really, REALLY should ban all auto-transcripts and "AI" notetakers. Transcripts are a great tool for non-confidential meetings. (though nobody needs an AI notetaker imho)

Leah Greenberg ❌👑@leahgreenberg.bsky.social · 7d ago

gonna keep saying this: the anti-trans attacks in 2024 were really about the economy! the point wasn't "vote on trans policy," it was "Kamala's focused on this, Trump's focused on your pocketbook." and this line of wedge attack is a lot less convincing when your party has been in power for 2 years!

jamelle@jamellebouie.net · 7d ago

i suppose i’m not surprised that it is difficult to make people care about something that is low visibility — the vast majority of people have no idea who piker is — and low salience. i think we’re also going to find, for similar reasons, that the anti-trans messaging isn’t working either.

Manuel Salgado@manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 6d ago

RE: the Punchbowl news report, this is at the very start of the transcript that they uploaded of the call. We just celebrated the assumption of good faith in our discussions on this platform a few days ago but then things like this happen that make it really hard to assume good faith in others.

Bild
Manuel Salgado@manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 6d ago

I am pretty close to considering any analysis that isn’t outright stating that it is failing to account for huge sections of the bill as outright dishonest. People are talking about our cost and emissions savings without a word about costs to frontline communities. Do they get to count?

Zahra Hirji@zhirji.bsky.social · 6d ago

A new analysis that looked at just one piece of reforms detailed in the tentative Senate deal & for just part of the US, the reforms could cut CO2 emissions by 71 million metric tons, or 9%, in 2035 compared to a non-reform scenario. Story @bloomberg.com: www.bloomberg.com/news/article...

Manuel Salgado@manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 6d ago

I want you to know, that if you stand by and don't say anything when Trump lies like this and you have children, they and their children will always know you as the cowards that allowed the greatest catastrophe to happen. He's lying about the biggest problem of our lifetimes - people need to act.

Aaron Rupar@atrupar.com · 6d ago

Trump on global warming: "That didn't work out because the planet got cooler. In fact, you know the ice that was melting? It right now just set a record. It's the biggest ice cube that's ever been in the history of the world ... they're doing the scam with data centers, by the way."

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich@riogranderift.bsky.social · 7d ago

This from 2024 on permitting reform—the underlying theory of change, role of emissions modeling, & broad array of values beyond energy infrastructure that are affected—very much holds up. Give it a read to get up to speed & understand the background of what'll prove a hotly contested fight.

DON’T OPEN THE GATES: LATEST DIRTY DEAL IN CONGRESS A TROJAN HORSE

Energy Permitting Reform Act (S. 4753) Would Entrench Fossil Fuels, Risk Backlash Against U.S. Transition to Renewable Energy

medium.com

Manuel Salgado@manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 7d ago

Poor drilling techniques present immense danger to water sources and the environment at large regardless of if they are used in geothermal or fracking. We’re not going to protect anything with less oversight.

Tony Dutzik@frontiertony.bsky.social · 7d ago

This is one of those seemingly minor provisions in "permitting reform" that is actually a big deal. We wrote back in 2024 about how this change would open up large areas of the West to poorly regulated drilling. frontiergroup.org/resources/mo...