Ramez Naam

There are many others beyond this, but this is a starter list. Very open to your feedback and thoughts. Thanks

7. Cont: Assign Senate seats based on the square root of population in a state or the log of population in a state. Give small states 1 Senator and the biggest states 3 or 4 Senators. This would still give small states a disproportionately large say, but would make the current system closer to fair.

7. A More Proportional Senate. The Senate gives additional votes to small states. There are historical reasons for this, and we will likely never end it entirely. But this too can be reformed.

6. Continued: A better system is Proportional Representation, where elections for House members are done at the entire State level rather than district level. This would end gerrymandering in one fell swoop, and remove the extremist bent of the current system.

6. Proportional Representation for the House. One-district-one-member-of-congress plus first-past-the-post means that 80% of all House seats are safe for one party. This makes the Primary the only important election in those districts, which encourages extremism.

5. Stronger State Laws Against Violation of Constitutional Rights. We have Federal laws such as 18 USC 242 that make it illegal to violate constitutional rights under color of law. But DOJ is captured. Every State needs equivalent laws that can charge either State or Federal violations.

4. Continued: State DOJs ought to be able to press Federal charges in Federal courts. In some cases, Members of Congress ought to be able to step up to press Federal charges when the DOJ is corrupt.

4. Deputized Subs for a Corrupt DOJ. When the DOJ in particular is seized by a corrupt President, then law becomes lawless. We need to deputize other bodies to step in to press charges for Federal crimes when DOJ refuses to.

3. Constitutional Independence of the DOJ, Fed, and Other Agencies. The President has too much power over the DOJ and vague power over other agencies that truly ought to be independent. We need an Amendment to make these agencies truly independent of the President.

2. End the Pardon Power. The Pardon Power, while well-intentioned, is another tool that allows the President and his delegates to be above the law. The President can instruct his followers and appointees to commit crimes, with all parties knowing he'll pardon them. Corrupt.

1. Limit or End Presidential Immunity. Constitutional Amendment needed. The President cannot be above the law. Very very limited immunity may be required, but the broad immunity for all "official acts" is overly broad and must go.

The Constitution needs an upgrade. Trump has made clear that the US Constitution & overall system have significant security flaws + traits that benefit extremism. We need structural changes, inc. multiple Constitutional Amendments, to improve resilience to future authoritraians. A starter list: 🧵

Federal law enforcement agents shot and killed a man in Minneapolis on Jan. 24 according to local police officials. DHS told Fox News that the man was “armed with a gun”. A video of the shooting appears to show that a gun was taken from the man before the first shot was fired. x.com/BillMelugin_...

Megan O'Rourke for Congress NJ-07 is one of the most flippable seats in the country: Join Megan’s campaign to help her do it

Hey, clean energy folks: I recently spoke with Megan O'Rourke, a climate scientist running for Congress in NJ-7, a flippable seat. If I set up a group zoom with her, would you be interested in joining. Feel free to reply here or DM. meganorourkeforcongress.com

The Third Phase of Clean Energy Will Be the Most Disruptive Yet Building new solar, wind, and storage is about to be cheaper than operating existing coal and gas power plants. That will change everything. When the history of how humanity turned the corner on clima...

Are we there yet? Crazy that this blogpost from @ramez.bsky.social is almost 7 years old. rameznaam.com/2019/04/02/t...

@ramez.bsky.social: "The EV revolution will be - and has been - telegraphed years in advance."

#alwaysbecharging nitter.net/ramez/status...

Funny take: "When Trump said 'drill, baby, drill', he didn't specify in the US!"

Serious take: US interest in Venezuelan oil also probably won't affect global supply on net, but it might make US oil companies a lot of money.

Thanks, Jehan! Happy New Year!

In looking at your analysis at the index you linked to, it seems that the highest emitting oil and gas production seems to be small projects clustered in countries where you'll never get policy to cut off that supply (e.g., Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Libya). Is there a way to group by country here?

Shutting down coal plants is on the demand side rather than the supply side. And I think the policies that shut them down and replace them with gas or renewables have been a significant win. Though economics is what made that possible.

Shutting down coal mines is a different story and futile.

Say more about LNG terminals. The analysis I've read finds that US LNG exports (one of the supply policies that actually does have a significant impact) are very likely a net reducer of global emissions, inclusive of leaks, through their displacement of coal. You disagree? Where can I read more.

2. Consider the counter-example I gave. Has "Drill, baby, drill" in the US increased global oil supply? No evidence that it has. If national pro-supply policies don't increase global supply, is there reason to believe that anti-supply policies reduce it?

Thanks. 1. As one example, consider that Europe broadly bans fracking. Has that reduced total oil supply on the market? I don't see much evidence that it has. It didn't even reduce Europe's consumption, just switched them to imports from non-democratic states.

Thanks. I hadn't seen this analysis and will read it an update my thoughts.

In any case I trust that we have very similar goals here. My thread was inspired largely by Matt Yglesias's NYT oped, and the core of that, for me, is that Democrats need to win in order to save America. And all other policy is secondary.

Ramez Naam on X: "Last week @mattyglesias wrote an NYT Op-Ed arguing that Democrats should embrace the US oil and gas industry. As someone who's worked to advance clean energy for 15 years, I agree with him at least 80%. I agree for both technical and political reasons. 🧵" / X Last week @mattyglesias wrote an NYT Op-Ed arguing that Democrats should embrace the US oil and gas industry. As someone who's worked to advance clean energy for 15 years, I agree with him at least 80%. I agree for both technical and political reasons. 🧵

8. I wrote a longer thread about this on twitter, here: x.com/ramez/status...

7 (cont). Voters hate supply restriction policies. They tilt voters away from liberals and towards conservatives, and backfire by empowering authoritarians. That is a real problem in this day and age.

7. Most crucially, the most important political issue of our time is the preservation of US democracy and the prevention and reversal of the authoritarian slide. All policy progress on climate in the US is downstream of that!

6. In looking at the relative impact of policies, EVs are now displacing perhaps 2 million bpd of oil, and could hit 5 million bpd by 2030 (IEA - see figure). What has supply restriction done to supply? Zero. In the real world, undercutting demand through tech is what works.

5. We're approaching the peak of oil demand, not because of supply constraints, but because of new cheaper technology (EVs). As demand plateaus and declines, supply restrictions will make ever less sense.