Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3294 3295 [3296] 3297 3298 ... 3511

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 3534862 times)

anewaname

  • Bay Watcher
  • The mattock... My choice for problem solving.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49425 on: August 14, 2022, 01:12:27 am »

Why is it a surprise that Trump kept all these documents?

You know he tried to keep the nuclear football? It was a real fight and the guy who took the punch from Trump without letting go of the football, probably got a medal.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
How did I manage to successfully apply the lessons of The Screwtape Letters to my perceptions of big grocery stores?

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49426 on: August 14, 2022, 07:27:57 am »

It's... not? I don't think anyone that's paid much attention is surprised that documents were kept (it was entirely known the shitgibbon had stolen a great heap of documents when he left office, getting them back has been an ongoing project for over a year), the closest thing to a surprise is exactly how classified they were ("heads could literally roll for this" classified), what their potential contents (nuclear tech, etc.) were, and maybe that the dumbass had affirmatively lied to federal officials about no longer having the classified stuff.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2022, 07:32:50 am by Frumple »
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

EuchreJack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lord of Norderland - Lv 20 SKOOKUM ROC
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49427 on: August 16, 2022, 05:20:57 pm »

Actually, what I found most surprising is Trump's latest "Give me back my documents" statement.
Or maybe that I was actually surprised by that, as it makes total sense he'd say that.

McTraveller

  • Bay Watcher
  • This text isn't very personal.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49428 on: August 17, 2022, 03:06:14 pm »

Oh yay.  The infrastructure bill that just passed makes the car I bought at least $3750 more expensive, more likely the full $7500.  I thought they'd phase it in, but no, part of it took effect immediately.

Isn't protectionism grand?

Especially when the US offerings are not even interesting to me.
Logged

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49429 on: August 17, 2022, 03:27:40 pm »

I'm not sure how that affects you, I'm imagining one of four different (perhaps mutually exclusive) scenarios:

1) You hadn't properly settled the amount until after the price rise, leaving you liable to a huge hike in cost, or
2) It means your choice of insurance is going to be more, or
3) Nope, you've got it just before and of that caused you problems, and in fact you're highly tempted to sell it on in the practically-new-second-hand-car-market with pretty much no natural depreciation and now a huge appreciation, and maybe you can resell and get a non-price-risen equivalent that's an effective upgrade, or
4) I have that entirely the wrong way round. You mean that the old price you paid was the "more expensive" and now you've got something with zero/approaching-zero resell value, for some reason. (Though surely still drivable, so... except for paying over the odds by an amount you already decided to pay, it'll still last long enough so long as you never feel you need to part-exchange onwards again.)
Logged

McTraveller

  • Bay Watcher
  • This text isn't very personal.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49430 on: August 17, 2022, 03:53:00 pm »

In my case I put a deposit down on a new EV back in the first week of June, but because of the new wonderful world of supply chain malaise, I still don't even have a target delivery date.  I'm blessed enough that I was not predicating my purchase on the tax credit, but that would have been a nice bonus.

Basically what it amounts to is that the bill really wasn't about helping the environment or setting up infrastructure investment, it was about protectionism.  If the bill was about helping the environment and shoring up international relations they would have kept the credits applicability to all makes and models, not just ones that happened to have some arbitrary content percentage attributed to US sources.  The pandering is even more obvious given the law specifically applies to pickups and SUVs up to like $80k MSRP versus things like sedans only up to $55k MSRP.

On the plus side, the bill doesn't preclude credit to "foreign" automakers, just those vehicles which are not assembled in the US or made from materials sourced in the US.  At least from what I can tell - I would think it hilariously hypocritical if they gave the full credit to US brands that were made overseas.
Logged

bloop_bleep

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49431 on: August 17, 2022, 06:12:33 pm »

I imagine the protectionism angle was to have another selling point to the bill for popular support.
Logged
Quote from: KittyTac
The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum mechanics.
Quote from: thefriendlyhacker
The trick is to only make predictions semi-seriously.  That way, I don't have a 98% failure rate. I have a 98% sarcasm rate.

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49432 on: August 17, 2022, 07:22:56 pm »

The part of the bill I learned about today, which really pisses me off, is that the US government is agreeing to subsidize the construction of new pipelines. Who knows, maybe we've always done that. But why do the mega-rich, environment-destroying oil barons get to make even more money at the taxpayer's expense for constructing something that the bill is actively trying to combat.

I imagine it's to offset the projected loss of income as oil sales reduce over the next ????. But again, fuck them. They don't need any more help, specifically TAX PAYER DOLLARS, to prolong their existence. Manchin deserves to be pilloried by a better party than the Democrats. If ever you wanted an example of why both parties impoverish voters, this is it. People keep talking about "compromise, compromise." The oil industry still holds all the cards. Their "gift" to us is making sure more of our tax dollars are captured by them for the purposes of making as much money as possible. And ya know, that's "reasonable" from their prospective: they're a soulless money-making edifice that lives only to make more money for the people that own it. They don't give a fuck, never have and never will, and that should be acknowledged when "compromising" with them.

Our ire should be focused on the representatives they've bought out. Without them, this legislation would look different. The fossil fuel industry would have to accept less without puppets fighting for their interests. Their campaign finances should be laid bare so we can see how much strictly legal compensation they've received for their part in fucking the American public over once again.

People keep touting the $ value of this legislation. But when you actually read what that money goes toward, you're trusting the speculation of the projected environmental impact reduction. There's lots of "investment" and "incentivize" but few actual hard changes. I think natural gas companies will get fined for releasing "excessive amounts" of methane now, which I'm sure has been negotiated to the point of uselessness.

And then good lord I just read this:

Quote
A group of 350 climate groups signed a letter last week calling on the US government not to include what they describe as “handouts to the fossil fuel industry” or invest in “fossil fuel industry scams” to reduce emissions.

“Permitting new fossil fuel projects will further entrench us in a fossil fuel economy for decades to come – and constitutes a violent betrayal of your pledge to combat environmental racism and destruction,” the letter reads.

Senator Bernie Sanders also added his signature to the letter, saying in an official statement ahead of its approval that it includes a “huge giveaway to the fossil fuel industry”.

Sanders said that the fossil fuel industry will receive billions of dollars in new tax breaks and subsidies over the next 10 years. He also pointed out that up to 60 million acres (243 million hectares) of public waters must be offered up for sale every year to the oil and gas industry as part of the bill before offshore wind developments can be approved.

A further 2 million acres (809,371 hectares) of land will also be offered for sale before leases for renewable energy development can go ahead.


Read the last two sentences very carefully. Per year. PUBLIC WATERS. When California is running completely dry, when Lake Meade is basically at the bottom. We've guaranteed them the right to buy up public lands and water, insane acreages, for the RIGHT to build offshore wind, or space can be LEASED to renewable energy sources.

Drink it in for a minute. Water resources are getting tighter, land is getting less habitable due to climate change and the fossil fuel industry which is the cause of it all is now guaranteed the right to buy up public land and water, vast quantities of it, before any competition can happen and any REAL slow down of the affect on the climate can happen. Combined with huge amount of money going toward feckless shit like tax breaks for electric cars and questionable stuff like investment in existing renewable energy production (because remember, only after the oil and gas industry gets their's can green tech even lease new land for renewable energy production), this all reads like a scam. A big stupid scam where lots of people get to make between some and all of the money while the world burns around us.

The article I'm reading doesn't specify and looking around a bit more there's a distinction between on-shore and off-shore resources. Off-shore water, while not great, is better than in-land water sources to some degree.

I wouldn't have signed this piece of shit with riders like this, and I'd have called Manchin a fucking traitor to the human race to his face. I stop short of saying I'd beat the shit out of him, mostly because I don't advocate violence, but also because it wouldn't do anything. If kicking the shit out of Manchin would have prevented the sale of our dwindling natural resources to the ghouls who are destroying the planet, I'd have done it. As it stands it would only make me feel marginally better about what Democrats just did to the country.

And no, I don't buy the "this might be our last chance....." Republicans couldn't have written a better "climate change bill" from the perspective of the oil and gas industry. There's some "ok" stuff in there, but no real positive change overall, just a lot of incentives and tax breaks and band-aids for disadvantaged communities. There's still no real consequences...oh and we will now be surrounded by lands owned by the oil and gas industry and they will control or at least usurp our water supply.

Sounding a lot less like Shadowrun and a lot more like 40k.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2022, 07:49:04 pm by nenjin »
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49433 on: August 17, 2022, 07:49:36 pm »

The part of the bill I learned about today, which really pisses me off, is that the US government is agreeing to subsidize the construction of new pipelines. Who knows, maybe we've always done that. But why do the mega-rich, environment-destroying oil barons get to make even more money at the taxpayer's expense for constructing something that the bill is actively trying to combat.
We've always done that, yeah, same with the leases and whatnot. Least from what I understand that part of the bill is an improvement from the current state of things (which is, of course, pretty shit) and has some wiggle room for shenanigans to mitigate the obvious problems involved (not the least of which being that interest in those leases has been reducing as renewable tech matures and the rest of it gets harder to extract), but it is indeed pretty damn far from ideal. Doesn't mitigate the rest of the good shit being passed with the bill, or even the likely benefits of just the green investment the leasing nonsense is ostensibly offsetting, but yeah, it's not great.

Don't even fucking joke about the GOP not being able to write a better bill for the oil and gas barons, though. All that'd take is cutting out the green investment and adding a pile of crippling regulation to it, which they'd love to do (nevermind removing regulation from said barons) and would about the only thing that could actually slow down the steady (if too damn slow) economic death of non-green tech.

Manchin is a fucking traitor to the human race, but between him, sinema, and the other 50 fucking traitors comprising the GOP wing of the senante, him being the hinge point of legislature is pretty much what we're stuck with if we're going to get fuckall this decade. It sucks, but that's the US for you :-\
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49434 on: August 17, 2022, 08:07:17 pm »

What this always comes back to is making the polluters change as little as possible, while indulging in the fantasy that we just need to reduce what consumers do and errything will be fine. Where's like, the manufacturing section of this equation? Chemicals production? All the industries beyond oil and gas that pollute, I don't really see mention of them. Although it's nearly 800 pages so, who knows, maybe this relates to them too.

But it's like.....saying if more Americans used low flush toilets we'd make a dent in water usage. When industry slurps up a disproportionate amount of usage but bears an unequal responsibility to change. Like, yeah, combustion engine cars on the road burning fuel are a contributor. But compared to all all inputs, industry is still responsible for more. But because making money is the sacred cow of American life, they get away with minimal impact to their operations and Americans just get incentivized to spend more money on better choices to "solve" the problem. The entire crux of the bill as far as Americans go is to spend money on renewable energy and efficiency, and get tax credits back. There's very little that's punitive. We already have tax breaks for EVs, they're just giving more of them. We already have tax credits for efficiency and green upgrades. They're just giving more of them. Not only is that speculative in nature, ultimately, it's avoiding targeting anyone or anything despite how much impact they're actually having on the climate.

About the only thing I approve of broadly in that section is the environmental resilience funding. But again, some of that seems like well wishing (ooo, planting trees in disadvantaged areas) and two....as you read over it you start imagining how much waste there will be due to fraud and mismanagement. Just look at Covid money that was doled out completely wrecklessly. The elaborate planning and funding and funneling of money to do all this just sounds like a mess waiting to happen.

It's just a fucking mess, period. I read the broad headlines a few days ago and felt good about it. But now that I'm read into some of the details I'd rather have not had a deal. Democrats are already acting like they're going to lose control of both Houses again, and probably the presidency, so this seems more like a cash out than a real attempt at addressing the problem. I'd take some better news about it if anyone has any.
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Dostoevsky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49435 on: August 17, 2022, 09:29:00 pm »

The EV stuff is 100% Manchin. He hates electric vehicles for not-entirely-clear reasons (he's a coal guy, not an oil guy), and it was either that language or killing it entirely. To him the EV credit isn't about electric vehicles, it's about US manufacturing, most notably from the battery production and critical mineral components that will phase in later on.

As to the public waters & oil leasing thing, just to clarify - it's terrible and dumb (and once again 100% Manchin), but this is offshore ocean, not freshwater (so still bad, just in a different way). In practice it's more likely to be about limiting offshore wind development than it'll be about increasing offshore oil development, but hard to say how it'll shake out. (There's also the fact that a lot of leased area is just sat on and not actually drilled that makes things more murky.)

The lands aspect isn't obtaining the land outright, it's 'just' extraction leasing, and it's not contingent in the same way as the offshore is (if it's what I'm thinking of, it's mandating a certain sale as part of the law, independently, and not tying it to renewables like the offshore one does). So it's only dystopian to the extent the existing order is.

The fact that this was a 50-vote reconciliation bill heavily limited what could be included (in short: you can do tax policy or spend money on existing programs, but not create new programs - this is a result of the loopholes-in-loopholes that allow this to exist in the first place). And since there isn't really substantive climate policy already in law, you get a lot of semi-vague grant programs, a bunch of tax incentives, some new taxes, and a fee or two as well. Still manages to be the biggest US climate bill ever, but that's in large part because we haven't really had a significant climate bill before.

There is manufacturing in the bill, largely centered on grants & tax incentives relating to increasing efficiency and electrification, but it's relatively small-ball as manufacturing emissions reductions is still something of a tough nut technologically.

Our (I work for an environmental org with mixed feelings about the bill) analysis suggests that this bill can make a sizable chunk toward the US emissions goals and also buttress later agency actions thanks to math, but that does depend on it being implemented right. We're trying to make do with what we have, and given that this is likely to be the last time non-Rs have the House, Senate, and White House for quite a while (though obviously that's hard to predict with certainty... and with the Trump component who knows what our government will look like in 6 years) getting some net-positive legislation is better than no legislation.
Logged

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49436 on: August 17, 2022, 09:58:07 pm »

Thanks for the read.

Quote
The EV stuff is 100% Manchin. He hates electric vehicles for not-entirely-clear reasons (he's a coal guy, not an oil guy), and it was either that language or killing it entirely. To him the EV credit isn't about electric vehicles, it's about US manufacturing, most notably from the battery production and critical mineral components that will phase in later on.

Well that explains why the battery in the EV can't be manufactured in China or you don't get the credit. I mean, I got that from the context already but it completes the picture.

Quote
As to the public waters & oil leasing thing, just to clarify - it's terrible and dumb (and once again 100% Manchin), but this is offshore ocean, not freshwater (so still bad, just in a different way). In practice it's more likely to be about limiting offshore wind development than it'll be about increasing offshore oil development, but hard to say how it'll shake out. (There's also the fact that a lot of leased area is just sat on and not actually drilled that makes things more murky.)

I later saw lease in other places as well. When I got the first article that used buy and lease in reference to oil vs. green, I took that literally. Still, if it's a 10 year deal and the quota has to be met before wind etc...can use coastal waters, doesn't that just effectively block deployment of wind energy for another decade? Or do they meet their quota per year and the rest can then be leased to wind? Either way, it's actively obstructionist. Resources may be getting harder to get at but they're still clearly profitable enough to bend half of US climate legislature against itself. And let's be honest: land that's had drilling or carbon capture or ruptured pipelines....ain't exactly worth much to the public when the lease isn't renewed. It can become an ecological disaster that you then have to litigate against the energy companies you leased to. So is it better than them outright owning the land? Sure. But if they contaminate it and ruin the environment, then honestly for the future there is no functional difference.

Quote
Still manages to be the biggest US climate bill ever, but that's in large part because we haven't really had a significant climate bill before.

A climate bill to me seems like a commitment to milestones via x, y and z. Although I may be hearkening back to earlier climate bills I've seen in my lifetime that tried to do that. This bill doesn't really strike me as that though. I don't want to diminish it by calling it a feel good bill but that's how a lot of what made it through reads to me. Like "haha, politically we can't make any real changes or mandate any real change so.....just more economic tinkering via taxes that we hope yields a real environmental impact I guess!"

Quote
Our (I work for an environmental org with mixed feelings about the bill) analysis suggests that this bill can make a sizable chunk toward the US emissions goals and also buttress later agency actions thanks to math, but that does depend on it being implemented right.

Well it's somewhat comforting to hear someone closer to it say it has a chance of actually helping. But it's pretty hard not to be jaded given how we've seen other programs just kind of sputter and die, or be poorly managed. Again I'd point to covid relief funds being really poorly managed, as well as the resource funding for community projects. And I can't say I have a ton of faith in programs that aim to solve big problems with incentivizing consumerism. I know it's kind of the only effective way to get any real adoption. But like I said above in my post, we've already had tax credits for this stuff and it hasn't slowed things down to the degree anyone's comfortable yet. Is a more sizeable EV credit going to actually do it? It's good the infrastructure spending for charging stations is in there...somewhere. But I keep coming back to that this all seems like a mishmash of ideas subject to market forces and economics more than anything. It makes me look back at the 90s and at least appreciate it felt like they were actually trying to set standards on pollution. Like between then and now the political will to tell energy companies what they can't do is completely diminished.

Quote
We're trying to make do with what we have, and given that this is likely to be the last time non-Rs have the House, Senate, and White House for quite a while (though obviously that's hard to predict with certainty... and with the Trump component who knows what our government will look like in 6 years) getting some net-positive legislation is better than no legislation.

Yeah, I understand that to be the sentiment. But it feels like this legislation, in being anything better than nothing, is still a devil's bargain. Like the government *has to* offer them public land for their expansion or they'll...stop selling us gas and making money? Again, it feels like being held hostage by whoever is negotiating with them. Which goes all the way back to Manchin and why a former coal executive is the one who is their mouthpiece. I read up on him more. Wow. Seems like a real DINO to me.

Sometimes I feel like they're just stalling until they get a handle on how best to monopolize and monetize green energy. Like in 10 years they'll have aggressively bought out most of the companies they're obstructing right now.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2022, 10:17:52 pm by nenjin »
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Dostoevsky

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49437 on: August 17, 2022, 10:16:00 pm »

I later saw lease in other places as well. When I got the first article that used buy and lease in reference to oil vs. green, I took that literally. Still, if it's a 10 year deal and the quota has to be met before wind etc...can use coastal waters, doesn't that just effectively block deployment of wind energy for another decade? Or do they meet their quota per year and the rest can then be leased to wind? Either way, it's actively obstructionist. Resources may be getting harder to get at but they're still clearly profitable enough to bend half of US climate legislature against itself.

While the amounts are high, there's still a massive amount of acreage out there and good oil leasing territory isn't necessarily the same as good offshore wind territory. And in practice it'll be more of a simultaneous thing then a 'lease oil first, wind second' (since timelines for regulatory action are long). That said, it's absolutely a hostage situation.

Quote
A climate bill to me seems like a commitment to milesstones via x, y and z. Although I may be hearkening back to earlier climate bills I've seen in my lifetime that tried to do that. This bill doesn't really strike me as that though. I don't want to diminish it by calling it a feel good bill but that's how a lot of what made it through reads to me. Like "haha, politically we can't make any real changes or mandate any real change so.....just more economic tinkering via taxes that we hope yields a real environmental impact I guess!"

Actual commitments on pollutants just isn't allowed in a reconciliation bill, unfortunately - a limitation of dodging the filibuster. The best they could do on that front is certain elements of the methane fee and the tech-neutral energy tax credit (which gives incentives based on overall GHG reductions).

The main reason it's actually hopeful to me, at least, is that the existing green energy PTC and ITC have actually been quite effective at bringing costs down and driving deployment. The big EPA "Clean Power Plan" that was finalized in the mid-2010s (and then repealed, and then after death was shot in the head for good measure by the S.Ct. a month or two ago just to be sure) was actually completely mooted by market forces, cleaning the grid faster than EPA was willing to mandate.

Quote
Well it's somewhat comforting to hear someone closer to it say it has a chance of actually helping. But it's pretty hard not to be jaded given how we've seen other programs just kind of sputter and die, or be poorly managed. Again I'd point to covid relief funds being really poorly managed, as well as the resource funding for community projects.

Yeah, I don't want to come off saying 'don't worry, it'll be fine'. Getting a bill across the finish line was pretty darn hard and required... Manchin... but implementation is even more important. Still plenty of room to muck it up.

Quote
Yeah, I understand that to be the sentiment. But it feels like this legislation, in being anything better than nothing, is still a devil's bargain. Like the government *has to* offer them public land for their expansion or they'll...stop selling us gas and making money? Again, it feels like being held hostage by whoever is negotiating with them. Which goes all the way back to Manchin and why a former coal executive is the one who is their mouthpiece.

So giving away the pen at a signing ceremony is something of a tradition, and Biden gave the pen from this one to Manchin. Gives a sense of the dynamic.

The US is (arguably, I know) a center-right country with a lot of love for corporate power and little love for mandates, so my personal take is this may well be the best America wants.
Logged

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49438 on: August 17, 2022, 10:25:36 pm »

Quote
So giving away the pen at a signing ceremony is something of a tradition, and Biden gave the pen from this one to Manchin. Gives a sense of the dynamic.

Yeah, Biden has always been right of center in the Democratic spectrum, and honestly Grandpa Joe just wants a win on the books. "It's good for oil and gas, it's good for the underserved, it's good for green tech (eventually), everyone wins. Now come sit on Grandpa's lap."

Quote
The US is (arguably, I know) a center-right country with a lot of love for corporate power and little love for mandates, so my personal take is this may well be the best America wants.

Well, lemme put it this way. My family has some money invested, and when my dad went to invest the first thing he told his broker is "no oil and gas." That's what this American wants.

Although NGL, I had to buy a new car last year and the EVs even used weren't really viable. For how much I'm not sure how many of these incentives will really change the overall picture, it might have changed my decision to buy an EV. I suppose with the car market being what it is still, if I get a buy back offer I could probably still make the switch. At the right price I might even profit.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2022, 10:28:29 pm by nenjin »
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Lord Shonus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Angle of Death
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #49439 on: August 18, 2022, 04:34:14 am »

Most of the "protectionism" in these bills is because a literal stated goal is "make it much harder for supply chain collapses to cripple the US economy in the future", specifically targeting a ton of weak points revealed by the twin shocks of a global pandemic and a shooting war in Europe. Another literal stated goal is to reduce the importance of China in the US economy, because the shooting war in Europe has shown that having large sectors of your economy heavily dependent on a potentially hostile country (in that case, the heavy reliance on Russian energy by Europe) is a bad idea.

Additional pipeline subsidies are being put in place because we're going to still need those for quite a while - even the most optimistic projections don't show EVs replacing new-manufacture consumer ICE vehicles until the 2030s, and commercial vehicles (particularly big trucks, a rather important element of running an economy) even further out than that. That doesn't even factor in oil and gas power plants (both of which are much better than coal) which will become even more important as EVs boost electricity demand (and even if you power them with an oil plant, EVs are an emission improvement over existing ICE vehicles).

Meanwhile, simple consumerism genuinely is doing a lot to shift things in the right direction. No government mandate caused Ford's entire EV line to be sold out before they even started serial production. Consumers did that entirely on their own. There's no government regulation requiring Dodge to discontinue their current (extremely inefficient and high-emission) muscle car range - the company looked at current trends and decided that the current line was not profitably sustainable. It isn't government mandates that closed forty percent of US coal plants in the last decade - they just weren't profitable enough.

Trying to accelerate the forces already pushing things where you want them to go is often easier, cheaper, and more effective than trying to awaken stalled forces or introduce entirely new ones. And that's exactly what this bill is doing.
Logged
On Giant In the Playground and Something Awful I am Gnoman.
Man, ninja'd by a potentially inebriated Lord Shonus. I was gonna say to burn it.
Pages: 1 ... 3294 3295 [3296] 3297 3298 ... 3511