A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
1–10 of 125 posts
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#2unfortunately Inslee doesn't seem to have the fortitude to defy the DNC's ban on "outside" (uncontrolled?) climate debates. and for good pragmatic reason, imo: the DNC could probably ruin his future political career.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#3These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact.
My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So big in fact that we face a generational backlash against de-carbonizing.
It takes time to make big shifts like this. People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year. We have to ramp up the renewable infrastructure at the same pace we wind down the legacy infrastructure, and in a way that doesn't bankrupt entire towns and even states.
Maybe it's not possible to tackle this without great pain to a lot of people. Maybe if we had a 'Pearl Harbor' type event that galvanized a super majority of americans into action and sacrifice...
I'm pessimistic that we'll have that moment, that we'll change that many minds, or that we'll have the fortitude and resolve to do what must be done.
But I'm glad Inslee is doing what he's doing, and working through the policies we'd need to get there, not just talking about doing "something".
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#4These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…
Funny, that you say that.
I actually think, policy based deprecation is the biggest possible boost the economy could get.
Think CDs Vs Vinyl, VHS to DVD. Or more on point: Catalytic converters.
Having to buy new stuff drives the economy, being content with "what works" throttles it (e.g. mobile devices, laptops).
Sure, there might be a backlash, but it's not like there isn't any opposition now.
Being to cautious (i.e. slow) bears the risk that people resist change because you are slowly (ergo constantly) changing things, and they don't see the benefit of the policy change.
(Assuming that it is indeed the case)
Edit: missing verb
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#5Inslee’s plan sounds like a door in the face technique to rile up extremist support. Who wants the nation to be heavily reliant on imports while the world develops alternatives? Besides our friends the Russians, Saudis, Iranians, and Venezuelans of course.
It’s possible but entirely impractical, in the same way that removing all plastic from one’s household is possible.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#6These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…
Funny, that you say that. I actually think, policy based deprecation is the biggest possible boost the economy could get. Think CDs Vs Vinyl, VHS to DVD. Or more on point: Catalytic converters. Having to buy new stuff drives the economy, being content with "what works" throttles it (e.g. mobile devices, laptops). Sure, there might be a backlash, but it's not like there isn't any opposition now. Being to cautious (i.e…
To add to this, which I think is entirely correct, it took the effects of spending on arming for WW2 that finally brought the world out of the Great Depression. Unemployment went down and the economy surged. The US New Deal helped but it wasn't nearly enough.
Edit: Is this controversial somehow? I thought it pretty standard and well known history.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#7Change the word "plan" with "dream" and the article looks a lot less like a one-sided editorial.
Articles like this start off from the angle of "we should do this" and in my opinion that's a BS way to frame a news story. Fossil fuels, especially natgas, serve a very specific function and the idea of putting the US at a disadvantage just so we can pat ourselves on the back as the rest of the world beats us in energy is ludicrous.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#8The problem is that there is no real solution. All of these plans involve ripping fossil fuel dependency out by its roots and just hoping that we have something to replace it.
The end result will be skyrocketing prices that only the wealthy can afford and a broken economy. I can't imagine any politician even thinking about sponsoring this as the devastation will be linked to them by their political rivals for many years to come.
It's only being used as a talking point right now to get votes.
How are we going to replace gasoline based cars in the US, when there is no infrastructure setup? We should concentrate on this first.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#9These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…
Funny, that you say that. I actually think, policy based deprecation is the biggest possible boost the economy could get. Think CDs Vs Vinyl, VHS to DVD. Or more on point: Catalytic converters. Having to buy new stuff drives the economy, being content with "what works" throttles it (e.g. mobile devices, laptops). Sure, there might be a backlash, but it's not like there isn't any opposition now. Being to cautious (i.e…
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's analogous. Lets say the cost of gasoline triples in the next 5 years because we're killing all subsidies, ending federal leases, etc., enough to justify everyone to make investments in electric cars. We literally can't make them fast enough. Making a million CDs was easy, but our heavy industries take a lot longer to tool up. Tesla is struggling to scale their supply chain, and they're consuming almost half the world's battery supplies right now to make a few hundred thousand cars per year.
And that's just cars - not including semi-trucks, farm equipment, buses, trains, shipping, etc.
Best case we need a decade to start manufacturing those things at scale and two decades to manufacture them at a pace that can start replacing all the existing vehicles. That's a long time for anyone stuck paying for gas.
And it's a similar situation for the Electricity sector, Cement and construction, and dozens of other industries that emit carbon. It's a really complicated transition - far more than switching media formats.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#10These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So b…
> People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year.
Or ever, perhaps. I can no longer remember where, but I recently read an article about a backlash by California Democrats against Green New Deal-type ideas. What stood out was someone saying that the idea of retraining workers for other types of jobs was offensive. If people in the oil and gas industry liked their job, then they ought to be allowed to keep it until they retired.