I live in Texas and there is a very odd split that doesn’t get a lot of attention. People outside of the state think it’s only oil and hicks, which yes, there is quite a bit of both, but the downside is that’s a stereotype that we get labeled for because those have been around longer than everything else, but is a majority that is growing narrower every day. If you look at the “future” parts of the state, we have some of the largest wind and solar farms, world class biomedical and technology facilities too to name of some it.

Unfortunately the interia of the old has made it very hard for Texas to shed its backwards look and that ever diminishing majority is going to do everything it can to hold on to their power. Part of the issue is the size of the state vs the demographics. If you look up the “Texas Triangle” there are 21 million people and majority of the GDP generation in the middle of the state, but the rest of the state is vast and adds up. Add to it the sheer amount of gerrymandering and voter suppression, and laws pushed through congress it is a microcosm of what we see on a national level.

I really hope I’ll see Texas flip blue in my lifetime but the “old guard” is going to throw everything they have to prevent that.

Not that believe most of this, but posted here for your responses.

I think a lot of people would look at the technologies being developed as putting a band-aid on the carbon issue rather than making other changes which fully addresses the issue.

Quick run-down:

e-fuels: equivalent of $45/gallon gasoline with today's tech. Might get that down to $15/gallon if it scales up. It's plausible for aviation, but other choices (eg: electric) are cheaper for surface transport

carbon materials: tiny amounts of CO2 if it can be made cost-effective

DAC: in general, this has the problem of being vastly more expensive than not emitting in the first place. That's why the IPCC considers it to be a tiny and expensive part of what needs to happen in the next few years.