politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
What's your take on this?
Here's an update on how things have been working out in practice. How would you update that 40% figure, in terms of how things have played out in the time since the law was enacted?
What would be your recommendation to do instead, and what would be your estimate of your recommendation's effect in terms of reduction in US emissions level?
I agree with the ends, but I have my suspicions the ends aren't going to be as effective as we've estimated, because estimating the responses of independent actors to an inducement is really tough even in simple controlled experimental settings, and energy markets are anything but simple. Also, this all just reminds me way too much of when we gave telecom companies subsidies to build out better internet infrastructure in the late 90s and early 00s and they were able to exploit legal loopholes to just take the money without actually building out their networks and serving unserved populations. The companies were dealing with are smart, they've been dealing with and exploiting government regulations and institutions for a very long time, and they are masters of having their cake and eating it too when it comes to this stuff.
Moreover, I really think we should not be giving one dime to oil and gas companies under any circumstances, whether its indirectly through these no strings attached tax credits we're giving to renewable energy companies that are majority owned by traditional energy companies or all the money we're throwing at carbon capture research that's probably not going to return meaningfully useful technology in time to matter. With campaign finance and lobbying laws as loose as they are and with these companies' histories of bankrolling some of the most harmful lawmakers and judges in our nation's history, we're basically feeding the monsters we have to fight. Also, it just sends a terrible message to all the other business leaders and corporations of the world if you can literally knowingly destroy the global climate for decades and never face any kind of punishment.
However, the IRA did get passed and those subsidies are out there now, and I think it's possible they will do some good and that blowing them up now would be really disruptive and damaging to a private clean energy industry that's currently* our best hope of not completely destroying the environment, so if I could wave a magic wand I would leave everything from the IRA in place and just add a lot more fees and penalties and taxes that targeted the oil and gas industries on top of it. Subsidies of any sort turn my stomach, but I think subsidies plus targeted fees and penalties is our best bet with where we're at now.
Ultimately, I think we should nationalize all these companies and turn them into public agencies with open records open meetings and elected administrators who hire subject matter experts that guide the administrators' policy decisions*, but I appreciate that's a number of steps away from where we are now and I think there will have to be some kind of gradual process to get there.
**This is also what I want to have happen to health insurance, education, housing, and social media (with the stipulation that private market based competition to these public agencies is totally encouraged in situations where it's practicably possible (e.g. power grids usually require monopolies of certain aspects, but there's no reason we couldn't have smaller more specialized private insurance companies in a country with publicly administered single payer universal healthcare))
Good stuff. What is your estimate of the total predicted impact on emissions of Biden's climate bill, now that we've seen it in action for a little bit? And your estimate of the overall impact of what you're talking about here?
It's a challenging question I'm sure, but you weighed in on whether Biden's bill is good or bad and what he should be doing instead, so presumably you claim for yourself enough knowledge to estimate the impacts of these different approaches. Yes?
Well, seems like this legislation has done wonders for the sealion population at least
I made the whole meme and then you edited your comment 😢
Anyway, I'm not surprised you're more interested in constructing narratives that fit the illusion you're trying to construct, than in answering basic questions about those narratives to test if they correspond to reality.
I'm not being, like, super friendly, but literally all I'm doing is asking you for details about what you're claiming is happening.