Emily Grubert
banner
gruberte.bsky.social
Emily Grubert
@gruberte.bsky.social

civil engineer / environmental sociologist. energy, water, climate, buildings, justice. fossil phaseout / universal programs. she / her. bunnies.

Environmental science 38%
Engineering 24%

Congrats. genuinely one of my favorite policy “experiments” and im rooting for it to go great!!

So cool! Is it right to read this as analogous to south bend’s preapproved plans?

Frustrating. I was on the technical advisory group for this but no real insight — we kind of unceremoniously got disbanded (in practice, if not formally) about a year ago…

Reposted by Emily Grubert

HELL YEAH LETS FUCKIN GO!

One of my favorite examples tbh! and thank you!

if you think we can achieve 0 ems, there has to be some point where it’s that dire between here and zero, right? and we’d probably expect the high burden of having to spend a ton of time getting to them, etc in the middle to fall on the poor.

Mobility is a public good. My argument is not that we should be propping up private business, but ensuring that the severe ramifications of every gas station in the country going bankrupt and walking away from heavily contaminated sites while no one can get to work are mitigated by advance planning!

This is basically our point! It’s not about the number of zero ICE cars — it’s about the point well ahead of that where it’s not worth staying in business as a gas station to serve the remaining vehicles. A network of gas stations won’t stick around to fill up one guy’s car 1x/week.

Reposted by Emily Grubert

Reactions to this week's newsletter have ranged from, "This is an absurd premise," to, "This is happening already in my city." So, pretty much what I've come to expect from writing about the energy economy.
insideclimatenews.org/news/0502202...
Looking Ahead to When Gas Stations Vanish - Inside Climate News
Leaders should plan for declining demand that will undermine the viability of fossil fuel businesses. New research says it could happen sooner than we think.
insideclimatenews.org

Reposted by Emily Grubert

i'd ask anyone who's read this far to keep thinking about what it actually means to build up the material reality behind phrases like "we're all in this together" or "this is a land of equal opportunity" because we're not and it's not! what would it look like if it were? what would have to change?

Reposted by Emily Grubert

i rallied some of my peers and we won but that was blackpilling. a patchwork of policy was enacted across the country, and whether or not you racked up tens of thousands of dollars of utility debt depended on where you lived, truly creating dozens of separate americas at that time.

Incomplete as a mental health indicator of course but I always worry for my undergrads a little when I don’t see any whimsical snow construction in the winter

This year they went full whimsy (catholic mode)

thank you!! we're hoping it helps seize the opportunity to do some really pro-social transition work.

🙏

Thanks! Looks like we hit our gift link limit but check it out on emilygrubert.org/publications

1000%. The fact that the US system essentially socializes supply side investment but not demand side investment is a huge issue, especially if the transition is not strictly voluntary

Sorry bout that, thought I originally posted the gift link but I didn’t:

www.science.org/eprint/NRCEW...
Fossil energy minimum viable scale
Unseen infrastructural threats to safety and decarbonization may arise as fossil energy systems are phased out
www.science.org

I’m not saying women can’t be shitty, but, uh, this list has a skew
Academics vying for a spot in Epstein‘s world. There are so many. I feel the need to make a thread, so I don’t keep confusing them. 1/
Just experienced the most intense tear gassing of my life by federal officers outside the ICE facility in Portland where marchers gathered. There was no fast exit as they indiscriminately threw loads of gas and flash bangs. Children were in the crowd screaming. @oregoncapitalchronicle.com
Academics vying for a spot in Epstein‘s world. There are so many. I feel the need to make a thread, so I don’t keep confusing them. 1/

100%. And something about how seriously you have to take the prospect of decarbonization before you notice that this is basically The Problem to Solve, too

I’m a little out of my depth on extant resources but one thing we’re looking at on the research side is how to decouple safety from individually owned tech — how do you arrange emergency access to heat in, say, a library as a backup plan. That’s the kind of thing locales are really well scaled for.

Right! And the fact that took decades is why we argue this transition can’t be voluntary. But that also carries greater responsibility to ensure it goes well.

I’m obsessed with the heating challenge — this is actually what my other postdoc (and a past PhD student) are working on. Thank you for this cartoon - I hadn’t seen it before!

Apologies — I thought I posted the gift link. Here it is:

www.science.org/eprint/NRCEW...
Fossil energy minimum viable scale
Unseen infrastructural threats to safety and decarbonization may arise as fossil energy systems are phased out
www.science.org

I'm shocked

(I'm not shocked)
New NHTSA crash data, combined with Tesla’s new disclosure of robotaxi mileage, reveals Tesla’s autonomous vehicles are crashing at a rate much higher than human drivers, and that’s with a safety monitor in every car.

Tesla has reported 9 crashes involving its robotaxi fleet in Austin, TX.

/1
Tesla's own Robotaxi data confirms crash rate 3x worse than humans even with monitor
Tesla’s nascent robotaxi program is off to a rough start. New NHTSA crash data, combined with Tesla’s new disclosure of...
electrek.co

TL;DR: Minimum viable scale means transition needs to go faster. Planning is how you get there. It's still not going to happen overnight, but it would happen a whole lot faster if we actually tried.

One well publicized instance where a sudden refinery or power plant closure kills people because they don't have enough EVs or solar or whatever would set this fragile transition back for a very long time, in addition to just being morally reprehensible given that good planning could prevent this.

because the things that would produce those few emissions can actually only operate if they're producing a lot of emissions.

If services fail without a backup, 1) bad things happen to people, which you should care about, and 2) you lose public trust in the transition, which delays things a LOT

What we're worried about is that people aren't taking seriously enough the point that we can't rely on the fossil system to be a backup safety valve for providing energy services as long as it seems. We don't really have the condition where maybe a few emissions are ok if it saves the system,