The UN should apply sanctions to the USA equal to the amount of subsidies they are paying to fossil fuels companies.
A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
41–50 of 125 posts
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#42There is a reason that candidates likes this are all at the margin - they never consider the second order effects of their ideas. While his goal may be laudable, it would harm way more people than it would help.
Let’s look at a couple simple things that getting rid of oil production would impact. (and keep in mind I’m keeping this short because typing on a mobile device sucks)
1 - price of electricity would go up (due to fuel costs) 2 - price of concrete would go up (due to both carbon usage and energy usage) 3 - price of steel would go up (probably way up due to the energy Use) 4 - price of plastic would go up (because of higher material cost)
Other third-order effects would happen too:
5 - price of food would go up (because of higher fuel and material cost) 6 - housing costs would rise (due to energy costs and things like PVC which make up huge portions of any modern plumbing system) 7 - inflation would rise (due to energy, food, and materials price increases)
And it just gets worse, hitting those on a budget or low income especially hard.
Again, the ideas may be laudable, but changes like this take decades - like 5+ decades, not just one or two.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#43There is a reason that candidates likes this are all at the margin - they never consider the second order effects of their ideas. While his goal may be laudable, it would harm way more people than it would help. Let’s look at a couple simple things that getting rid of oil production would impact. (and keep in mind I’m keeping this short because typing on a mobile device sucks) 1 - price of electricity would go up (du…
I think you have this all wrong.
Those prices going up is necessary and good. It creates a huge market pressure against all activities (including stuff like food sources) that produce a lot of carbon.
If it damages our atmosphere to create a steel, then that factor NEEDS to be accounted for and COMPENSATED for at steel creation. Fortunately, in addition to driving down the appeal of high-pollution foods/materials, it'll also stimulate the market for green solutions by pumping huge financial incentives in.
Does this mean life is harder for the poor? Yes. That's why proposal like this or green-new-deal often have a plan for that too.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#44These 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…
The plan looks feasible to me. Certainly much more feasible than Kennedy's pledge to land on the moon before the end of the decade...
Certainly much more feasible than stopping manufacturing of all non-military steel products and asking people to donate steel for manufacturing tools, weapons, and vehicles for WW2.
The issue isn't that it's a huge task. The issue is that the current industries and governments are dragging their feet trying to mik every penny they can from their current dynasty.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#45Change 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 i…
Seems like the whole world is getting ahead of the US with all this feet dragging. That's the real disadvantage. Every major issue the country faces, the answer is "well it's a lot easier to just sweep this under the rug because I have an election coming up and gives I can upset so let's just not do anything about this". And now every corner of the US is crumbling, from healthcare to infrastructure.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#46These 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…
Thirty years is a long time. Think about how different the economy was in, say, 1930 compared to 1900. Or 1840 to 1870. How much fossil fuel infrastructure lasts for thirty years? We could almost do it by just using the natural replacement cycle.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#47I want clean energy as much as the next guy, probably more (it's one of my top concerns). But plans like this are extremely naive. I agree, we need to get the of fossil fuels as fast as possible. But very few articles like this mention what we'd replace it with. Wind, solar, and hydro are all fantastic, but hydro is the only one that can produce constant output. It is also difficult to throttle the other two and brin…
The solutions are out there if we put the money into it. It's that simple. The only thing needed is really battery technology which research had been promising. We put a man on the moon in less than a decade doing all calculations by hand and doing all physical testing. All that's needed is funding and the drive.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a tough thing. Imagine someone was telling you that you had to change your career because people decided it's no good. What will you do? Put your life on hold and go retrain for something you never intended to train for? Possibly (probably) earn less? Potentially need to move for work? It's complicated. I think it needs to happen. The US and Canada both spend major subsidies on oil and gas, and that money woul…
It’s already happened for almost everyone employed mining coal, because of automation. No climate change needed.
Just for perspective, coal mining employs about half as many Americans as Whole Foods. That’s one specialty grocery chain. The amount of attention given to coal miners is absurd.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#49There is a reason that candidates likes this are all at the margin - they never consider the second order effects of their ideas. While his goal may be laudable, it would harm way more people than it would help. Let’s look at a couple simple things that getting rid of oil production would impact. (and keep in mind I’m keeping this short because typing on a mobile device sucks) 1 - price of electricity would go up (du…
We are already paying those higher prices. We’re just paying a lot of it in economically inefficient ways, though damage to the ecosystem and to people’s health. Getting people to pay for them with money would be better.
Re: A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an old remark: "Recession and depression are the easiest things in the world to cure -- just print money.". The cause of our recessions and depressions was suddenly too little money. That is, a lot of money was destroyed. How? When the banks, etc. got in trouble, the multiplier effect enormously reduced the money supply. Soooooo, have some new regulations on reserve ratios, etc. for banks and then print the m…
The US Government started printing money as you say for government projects as early as 1930, 12 years before the war. Hoover dam for example. So are you saying it takes 12+ years for your theory to work? Also, how many millions more have died due to over-printing of money? MMT is a disaster waiting to happen because at the end of the day Credit=Trust and you can only borrow so much before you lose that trust. Trust…
They printed money starting in 1930? Yup, the dam. But they didn't print enough.
And Bernanke didn't print enough fast enough -- we were in the Great Depression for about 12 years and nearly that long in the Great Recession. Bummer.
You are correct about the threat of inflation. But we know how to stop inflation: Reduce the money supply, e.g., by raising interest rates. Then the member banks will return their loans from the Fed.
So MMT stands for modern monetary theory? Uh, I tend to avoid any theories from economists and stay with simple observations.