The difference is everyone was in the same boat. If we spend and additional 40% of our GDP today versus others who don't do it our products become uneconomic compared to everyone else. In addition even if we go to zero and China, India, etc don't cut their emmisions it's just not going to lower the total worldwide CO2 much. I know you think we should set the example and everyone else will then follow us. Good luck in that.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
The difference is everyone was in the same boat. If we spend and additional 40% of our GDP today versus others who don't do it our products become uneconomic compared to everyone else. In addition even if we go to zero and China, India, etc don't cut their emmisions it's just not going to lower the total worldwide CO2 much. I know you think we should set the example and everyone else will then follow us. Good luck in that.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Sure. Now figure fossil fuel costs for the fleet over 16 years.
I use 27 mpg and 14k miles a year per car
Brando
Active Member
a car is a car - It is the batteries that are the limiting function for EVs - not the actual car.
If the US doesn't build EVs, it seems China will. China ~ = US + EU sales [US is now 3rd largest market China, EU, USA
Similar to solar panels - US had the lead and seems they now have lost it to China
Tesla somewhat of a wild card. based on revenues [and certailnly on price/vehicle] Tesla may be a leader world wide.
China making Electric Buses might also lead in Revenues as the Bus market and the car market tend to be separated.
different factories and different buyers (for example car dealers don't often sell City Buses)
note: I said for Ford & GM - not for all US sales
source: Dr.Data on AutoLine After Hours - sorry not sure which show (about future of auto industry and the rising costs of vehicles while mid-class wages have stalled since late 70s. and min. wages not kept up with inflation.)
thanks for your perspective.
PS - hope you found time to listen to Wilkerson - very interesting, no??
Last edited:
That's why you have a carbon fee with dividends (H.R. 763). This is different than a carbon tax because the money is distributed to the residents based on the number of people in the household (means it's government revenue neutral). Other countries also pay the fee when importing goods based on that country's industry's carbon output. If they clean up, the fee is reduced or negated. Assuming that country wants to sell products at a competitive price, they clean up their act.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Good luck with not doing it and trying to remain competitive. What you consistently fail to understand is that doing things the old way is a dead end. We've already proven that renewables are more cost effective in the long run, what else do you need? I guess you think evs can't work either?
I have an EV and solar panels and they work well with the subsidies i received. I agree we need to move towards other sources of energy and if wind and solar are less expensive than fossil fuels we will naturally move to them. The problem is that as you get to the point you need storage and overbuilding to provide reliable energy the cost is well above what fossil fuels cost. Germany has started to run into that problem with their renewable program. As far as I'm concerned the best sources of clean electric energy should have been nuclear and hydro but environmentalist are against both.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??? Nuclear encounters the same problem of relying on fossil fuels. If Demand is 30-50GW you can't economically operate >30GW of nuclear.... and even then it's iffy. Economics killed nuclear. Geology makes hydro no more than a niche in most areas.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
This is years old misinformation. Wind and solar are cheap, that doesn't change with capacity. Germany had to slow down because cheap solar regularly turned their wholesale energy prices negative and literally every major utility went bankrupt. They needed a pause in their absurd adoption rate to allow for storage to catch up.
Batteries are(were) expensive, not solar or wind. The FIT rate was pegged at like 8.9 EUR cents per kwh, that's insanely low for cloudy Germany. Now they've moved to auctions for solar which is far far cheaper. I thought these costs arguments ended in 2014?
Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity. How is that the environmentalists' fault? What happened to the free market fairy you people believe in? The free market has spoken, and it says that nuclear is too damned expensive to build.
Given that many conservatives appear to be looking forward to 1890, I expect to hear these cost arguments for some time.
Rural America is ready for some sort of a New Deal, preferably green | Art Cullen
Here in farming country we have the opportunity to rethink our approach to renewable energy and food production
For example.
The Great Plains from Iowa down through Kansas and Texas lead the world in wind energy production. Yet the wind energy production tax credit is set to wane and expire over the next five years. Those wind turbine royalties are increasingly important in western Kansas where you can barely raise a corn crop even with irrigation because of soil degradation and warmer nights wrought by climate change. Wind energy technicians who keep the blades whirring are paid good union wages and are welcome residents in tiny Iowa villages. They could ply their trade in West Virginia as well.
Yet they are fought at every turn. Astroturf groups spring up to clamor against new wind farm developments, citing phony “science” of human and fowl health threats, and funded by unknown interests. They have been able to slow or block development of new production and transmission capacity while new oil pipelines are laid near sacred Native ground and under the Missouri river without a problem. Utility companies, while capitalizing on wind revenue, continue to try to squeeze out small farms and businesses from metering their production back into the energy grid. They have been fighting that battle since the late 1980s, when Iowa wrote the first state renewable energy portfolio. And our grid isn’t getting that much smarter, so it can ship wind power when it’s needed where it’s needed, but remains vulnerable to natural and computer-assisted disaster.
Here in farming country we have the opportunity to rethink our approach to renewable energy and food production
For example.
The Great Plains from Iowa down through Kansas and Texas lead the world in wind energy production. Yet the wind energy production tax credit is set to wane and expire over the next five years. Those wind turbine royalties are increasingly important in western Kansas where you can barely raise a corn crop even with irrigation because of soil degradation and warmer nights wrought by climate change. Wind energy technicians who keep the blades whirring are paid good union wages and are welcome residents in tiny Iowa villages. They could ply their trade in West Virginia as well.
Yet they are fought at every turn. Astroturf groups spring up to clamor against new wind farm developments, citing phony “science” of human and fowl health threats, and funded by unknown interests. They have been able to slow or block development of new production and transmission capacity while new oil pipelines are laid near sacred Native ground and under the Missouri river without a problem. Utility companies, while capitalizing on wind revenue, continue to try to squeeze out small farms and businesses from metering their production back into the energy grid. They have been fighting that battle since the late 1980s, when Iowa wrote the first state renewable energy portfolio. And our grid isn’t getting that much smarter, so it can ship wind power when it’s needed where it’s needed, but remains vulnerable to natural and computer-assisted disaster.
Here's the problem:
Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it? | Phil McDuff
...the existing political establishment looks more and more like an impediment to change. The consequences of global warming have moved from the merely theoretical and predicted to observable reality over the past few years, but this has not been matched by an uptick in urgency. The need to keep the wheels of capitalism well-oiled takes precedence even against a backdrop of fires, floods and hurricanes.
We will simply have to throw the kitchen sink at this. Policy tweaks such as a carbon tax won’t do it. We need to fundamentally re-evaluate our relationship to ownership, work and capital. The impact of a dramatic reconfiguration of the industrial economy require similarly large changes to the welfare state. Basic incomes, large-scale public works programmes, everything has to be on the table to ensure that the oncoming system shocks do not leave vast swathes of the global population starving and destitute. Perhaps even more fundamentally, we cannot continue to treat the welfare system as a tool for disciplining the supposedly idle underclasses. Our system must be reformed with a more humane view of worklessness, poverty and migration than we have now.
US Senator Dianne Feinstein’s meeting with schoolchildren petitioning her to take action over the issue went viral because of the way she condescended to them for, basically, asking her to leave them a planet behind to live on. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years,” she said, “I know what I’m doing.” The obvious response is, of course, that messing something up for 30 years is quite long enough, thanks. Long tenure without results is not the same thing as expertise.
This is a tough and bitter pill to swallow for the political professionals whose feet are firmly under the table. It is increasingly obvious that all their tactics have done almost nothing except run down the clock, but still they insist that it’s the young who just don’t get it and that things aren’t that simple. They’re the living embodiment of the famous New Yorker cartoon, with a suited man sat in a post-apocalyptic landscape telling his young audience “Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it? | Phil McDuff
...the existing political establishment looks more and more like an impediment to change. The consequences of global warming have moved from the merely theoretical and predicted to observable reality over the past few years, but this has not been matched by an uptick in urgency. The need to keep the wheels of capitalism well-oiled takes precedence even against a backdrop of fires, floods and hurricanes.
We will simply have to throw the kitchen sink at this. Policy tweaks such as a carbon tax won’t do it. We need to fundamentally re-evaluate our relationship to ownership, work and capital. The impact of a dramatic reconfiguration of the industrial economy require similarly large changes to the welfare state. Basic incomes, large-scale public works programmes, everything has to be on the table to ensure that the oncoming system shocks do not leave vast swathes of the global population starving and destitute. Perhaps even more fundamentally, we cannot continue to treat the welfare system as a tool for disciplining the supposedly idle underclasses. Our system must be reformed with a more humane view of worklessness, poverty and migration than we have now.
US Senator Dianne Feinstein’s meeting with schoolchildren petitioning her to take action over the issue went viral because of the way she condescended to them for, basically, asking her to leave them a planet behind to live on. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years,” she said, “I know what I’m doing.” The obvious response is, of course, that messing something up for 30 years is quite long enough, thanks. Long tenure without results is not the same thing as expertise.
This is a tough and bitter pill to swallow for the political professionals whose feet are firmly under the table. It is increasingly obvious that all their tactics have done almost nothing except run down the clock, but still they insist that it’s the young who just don’t get it and that things aren’t that simple. They’re the living embodiment of the famous New Yorker cartoon, with a suited man sat in a post-apocalyptic landscape telling his young audience “Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Creating rules advantageous to consumers is anti-capitalist.
Capitalism is all about the accumulation of capital. The transfer of resources from peons to the capitalists. When you create rules that hinder this flow of resources to the capitalists, you are anti-capitalist.
The reason is all the extra regulations and delays you get when you try to build one. The cost of building new nuclear plants in China are about one half the cost of building one in the US.
SDRick
Active Member
Capitalism or free-market enterprise can also be seen as a method to cooperate. Those who do a better job cooperating with their customers and employees often does better than those who do not.
SDRick
Active Member
That is a great example of perversion of the government. Tesla endeavors to cooperate with customers in the state of Texas and the government creates anti-capitalist rules to the detriment of the consumer.
The best strategy for capitalists is to extract as much revenue from customers as possible and pay their employees as little as possible. Cooperation is socialist, not capitalist.
The free market also interferes with the accumulation of capital by letting others capture revenue and driving down revenue. Capitalists like monopolies best.
Good capitalists like to control the market. Texas capitalists are just protecting their market.
Cooperation is socialism.
- Status
Similar threads
