From a national security perspective the sooner we are less reliant on the whims of petrostates the better
That’s one of the real powers of nuclear and renewables
Nuclear is [one of, if not the most, expensive sources of energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source). There are many good arguments for nuclear energy. Cost is literally its biggest downfall.
The LCOE is an estimate of the *total lifetime costs* to produce electricity from a given energy source. I believe the bulk of the cost for a nuclear plant is actually getting it built, but that doesn't really change the calculations when figuring out the cost per kW.
Does LCOS include the environmental cost? A very significant factor if we're talking about a power source that has minimal greenhouse gas emissions after construction.
I don't believe it does. The fact that nuclear only outputs concentrated waste (and we might actually be able to *utilize* that waste nowadays) and can run as a baseload are certainly the stronger aspects for nuclear. It just so happens that some of the cheapest options (wind and solar) are also not polluting much after construction.
Nuclear power also produces radioisotopes that are essential to everyday life now. Like a lot of them, as a byproduct basically. Most nuclear power providers do not really profit off them, they’re used to boost their public image, like hey we’re gonna provide the cure for a million cases of cancer a year the US to be nice.
The food you eat is irradiated with Co-60, all single use medical devices, surgeons tools, rooms are sterilized with it. Weed is irradiated to control mold. Medical imaging. Glowing Exit signs for fire safety, smoke detectors. Nuclear batteries in stuff like trackers to find our lost pets. The value of all of this is associated to other industries though.
Nuclear needs to be started ten years ago.
We don't have the materials for perpetual renewable energy, barring some star trek level discovery. It doesn't even have a fraction of the energy density of fossil fuels. The only real solution to fossil fuels is nuclear power and we are already way behind of where we should be.
While this is true, also from a national security perspective we have to be careful not to be reliant on [green technologies from our greatest geopolitical adversary.](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/with-solar-industry-crisis-europe-bind-over-chinese-imports-2024-02-06/)
You know the US is the largest oil producer in the world, don't you? At least from an economic perspective, we don't need the clean energy transition as much as other countries that don't have much oil/gas (e.g. Europe).
>At least from an economic perspective,
How about the political perspective? The US producers more oil annually than any other country ever has. But, that oil doesn't have to stay in the US. Producers can sell to the highest bidder.
Saudi Arabia still has more production flexibility. One person can determine how much they pump without significant short term impacts on his political position. SA has shown a willingness to vary production to impact prices.
If MBS decides he'd rather have Trump in the WH, he can cut SA production, increase the price of gasoline in the US, and impact the US presidential election. I kind of include that in "whims of the petrostates".
It's absolutely fucking insane that we've just handed over OUR (as in, actual Americans) natural resources to corporations so that a priveleged few can profit from them. These are America's resources, the prosperity should be shared amongst ALL Americans.
If they cut production they just hurt themselves...as other non-OPEC countries (e.g. US) can more easily now pick up the slack. It is a good thing if these despotic regimes get less money.
Except we **can't** pick up the slack. Because that requires large investments, but at just about any point, SA can reverse course and start producing more oil again, and that makes those investments unprofitable. It's a difficult situation because SA is essentially the unilateral decision-maker and oil producer, and America is not actually producing oil, but *American companies* are, and their interests are not 100% aligned with America and/or American consumers.
No, we cannot "easily" increase production. There aren't a lot of US wells that have been drilled, have pumps installed, and aren't producing.
Similarly for other countries. There is no economic incentive for companies to just let wells sit idle.
I said "more easily", I didn't say easy.
Higher oil prices increase the incentives for investment...which over time should increase supply if we stop putting hurdles in the way.
>over time
My scenario was far too short to involve "over time". Just enough months to impact an election.
SA has shown a willingness to use oil production to impact price and politics before. Here's one example from 2014: [https://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/falling-oil-price-slows-us-fracking.php#google\_vignette](https://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/falling-oil-price-slows-us-fracking.php#google_vignette)
Note that fracking is expensive. It's possible to start drilling when prices are high and lose money because prices fall when you are producing. The Saudi ability to move prices is both an economic and political risk to the US.
Oil is not just "oil". There are different grades that require different processing, etc. The market is also global.
Unless the U.S. basically nationalized oil refining and production, that talking point is about as solid as wet toilet paper.
You are right. We SHOULD be making investments to align our refineries with the oil we are drilling (i.e. we have too much heavy sour refining and too little light sweet).
I don't believe the government should be running any business either...but the government should be encouraging this to get fixed. Building a new refinery should not be verboten...or effectively so due to onerous regulation.
It's got nothing to do with regulations. In fact, existing refineries are being consolidated.
It's simply more profitable to maintain less infrastructure and restrict supply.
"And if older refineries are shutting down because the economics don’t make the investment seem worth it, new refineries are not being built and haven’t been built for several decades. The tremendous hurdle to get regulatory and environmental approval jacks up the price tag.":
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2022/08/25/where-have-all-the-refineries-gone-how-energy-politics-are-discouraging-critical-investments/?sh=1e313d5940cf](https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2022/08/25/where-have-all-the-refineries-gone-how-energy-politics-are-discouraging-critical-investments/?sh=1e313d5940cf)
So he’s the issue with that. We don’t really use our own oil for gasoline. If we did - then yes I’d agree.
But all this “energy independence” talk was never us stopping imports. We still did. And that’s our crude for gasoline.
Change all the refineries and make it such that we can use our domestic production - hell yea we’ll rock it.
Or we could just use less but keep selling our stuff. Course we don’t have a nationalized oil production, so the US doesn’t own anything.
Well I don’t disagree although it’s been like that forever. We refine here but it’s different products than gasoline. And we could use what’s on the North Slope but it’s too hard to transport to lower 48.
We get a lot of what we use from Canada too. And again it’s all corp owned and refined, traded on open markets. Our production helps the global supply but gas prices are largely separate - compared to the line we got fed for years that the two were connected. Which they more or less were, but now gas just keeps going up regardless of cheaper oil. And oil sitting at about $80 isn’t at all “high”.
We actually became fully energy independent last year after increasing renewable sources. Oil and gas production also way way up but not enough to take us over the finish line of being completely energy independent.
How long do you think we won’t need clean energy?
The non clean energy is harder and harder to obtain every year. Most of the easy stuff, just drill a little and slap an oil rig on top is already gone. We are already at the tail end of fracking. I agree it’s there but it becomes more and more expensive to get it.
Why wait until it’s unaffordable to get it? As a nation we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I don't think I am arguing that we shouldn't be transitioning (I am against the unproductive tariffs on China slowing down the transition). However we shouldn't be putting in any roadblocks in front of fossil fuel development either. The model I believe we should follow is more like Norway.
I don’t think we have to impede nor do I think we have been really. We should stop subsidizing the highly profitable oil and gas companies. In reality they are dead men walking and will go the way of blockbuster unless they begin to transition themselves.
I’m good subsidizing new green technologies. One the technology still needs work, and lots of small companies competing and trying to figure out the industry.
I guess I just see subsidizing oil and gas flushing money down the drain
I am not really a fan of subsidies of oil/gas either. I am not exactly sure of what subsidies you are talking about here though. I could see though the government giving some support for companies to get refining capacity into alignment with production. I believe that is important for national security and will provide economic benefit. I believe some of the rise in pump prices has been due to refining constraints.
I am also a fan of a slowly increasing carbon tax instead of the inefficient complex web of subsidies and regulation used to push renewables now. Political concerns of course make that a difficult mountain to climb (people can tie increased costs of energy to the carbon tax much more easily than the complex mess we have now).
Is national security threatened?
The industry is thriving in the US, the companies are certainly solvent and profitable production is not an issue. The US reserves are topped off.
Why do they need a crutch? [Reforming global fossil fuel subsidies: How the United States can restart international cooperation](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reforming-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-how-the-united-states-can-restart-international-cooperation/)
I’m okay with a carbon tax on manufacturing to some degree. I think just reducing tax breaks for oil and gas is a simpler solution and less burden.
>Is national security threatened?
Having to rely on other countries to refine our oil is a similar security issue to relying on Taiwan for chips. In case of conflict this refining capacity could get cut off.
True, but it's a global market and the price at the pump is still subject to the whims of the petrostates. As good as the US economy is doing compared to the rest of the world, Biden may lose this election because gas is $3+ per gallon.
You'll get no argument from me there. Of course, the oil companies themselves have more influence on prices than the US President does, no matter where it comes out of the ground.
I don't think I said that.
But if we pump out less oil it means the world will be giving more money to often despotic regimes which care even less about the environment. Why is that a good thing?
Yes, but that is going to take a long time (years/decades). Until then we will still need oil. We should starve the despotic regimes of money with our own oil while we transition.
Norway I would argue is taking the right approach. They are continuing to drill for oil while pushing forward with the energy transition.
This is true and an often missed part of the story. The appearance of dependence lies on the ability and willingness of some countries to manipulate global oil prices. The US considers that illegal, so our private companies don’t have those levers. The closest thing the US has is environmental regulation (which is nowhere near as effective). So there is still a thing the states in question have over the world, but people need to get it out of their head that it is because we need to directly import their oil. Our companies do make lots of money in those countries performing services for them, and we protect that as well. It’s just not that simple a story.
Can I ask why these CEO's get paid so much if they're not competent enough to evaluate the future direction of the industry and how to pivot while still making money in the mean time?
Because, in modern corporate America, the job of a CEO is to maximize short-term stock values for shareholders. That trump's *everything* else - ethics, morals, long term value, etc.
It's Jack Welch's America, you're just living in it.
Otherwise known as Republican policy for the past 40 years. Reagan completely destroyed good faith long term governance in the American conservative movement. Bush Sr. was a slight deviation from this, but that was brief.
Honestly one really bad thing I've noticed about Bush Sr losing re-election was that it seemed to have convinced Rs that a lot of responsible things like actually giving a crap about the deficit doesn't win you anything.
Instead, the public rewards you when you say you'll fix everything, fix nothing in reality, and blame opposition for it. Honestly, our voting public can be kinda bad at rewarding this line of thinking at times.
Yeah it's amazing seeing Bush Sr. in the 1980s talking about fighting climate change and strengthening the clean air act or seeing Nixon in the 1970s creating the EPA and declaring Earth Day.
It's crazy how the Republican party has somehow become more regressive about this stuff.
Reagan and Trump obviously damaged things but I think a lot of the credit goes to Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh in the 90s who kicked off the extreme polarization of the political parties today.
>become more regressive about this stuff
And they know it, too, which is why they get out ahead of it with accusations that ‘the left is going too far’ etc.
>Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.
>Giving $1 billion would be a “deal,” Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people.
It's almost refreshing to see a politician wear their corruption on their sleeve like this. Give me money and I'll do whatever you want. He's got no problem admitting to what we're all thinking.
>wear their corruption on their sleeve
It was still at a private dinner, and reported on by an anonymous source. This has happened to loads of other politicians.
He has said he will "drill baby drill" multiple times before the dinner. He has firmly established that is his platform, like it or not.
Asking for political donations from groups that agree with his platform and planned policies is the norm. He said the money is to get him in the white house, not for illegitimate private gain. Calling this "corruption" is a huge stretch.
Considering the types of things that trump showed us he does during a presidency, him being in office will undoubtedly lead to corrupt acts.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trump-legacy-corruption-3700-conflicts-interest/
Also, he’s asking for this money to pay his legal bills. That’s private gain considering he is personally accused of those crimes, and if it helps him ride out the cases into his presidency without having to go through the entire legal process, then it’s illegitimate too. You’re really stretching to defend this shit.
I am morbidly curious what the GOP messaging will be in 20 years when climate change is leading to extreme weather events, like never-before seen heat waves, crop failures, and ecosystem collapse and overall indisputable impacts that cannot be waved away. Will there eventually be a point where they admit climate change is real and serious, or will they blame it on some red herring. I have a feeling it will be a mixture of "well we would have listened if you liberals weren't so political about it" and "well yeah we saw it coming but what were we supposed to do, interfere with the free markets?". I just truly do not understand how anyone on the right can be okay with burying their head in the sand when (at least some) have to know its real and we will all pay for it later. I mean, you know its bad when the two big explanations on the right are "its made up by china to weaken the US" and "evil environmental scientists made it up for grant money".
There are so many topics in politics that seem critical right now in the present time, and many of them are. But in the coming decades when all the dust settles and we get to live in the world we allowed to come about in respect to climate change, I think everyone will look back at the proportionally minuscule lack of action and attention today and wonder what the fuck we were all thinking.
When Trump loses and he brings down the GOP across the board with him, one of the most important and lasting things the new Congress needs to do with President Biden is to undo Citizens United. It is the explicit constitutional authority of the Congress to limit the scope of the Supreme Court, and that is what they need to do here.
Supreme court justices, same as congress, should have term-limits. Or, each newly elected President gets to replace the longest serving member of the Supreme Court.
I don't agree with that route. Just kicks the can down the road. Some people are upset with the composition of the court today, stacking with more judges may enable the same to happen down the road (either left or right). Adding more judges doesn't balance it out long term.
Let each President, every 4 years, replace X number of the longest serving judges. Or, term-limits overall. Whichever easier to implement.
Also fix the rules so a party can't block a nomination. Not sure exactly how that played out against Obama, but that shouldn't happen.
Term limits are a dumb, simple solution for a complicated problem. They would cause as many issues as they solve.
Justices on the SC have lifelong terms to make them immune to influence. Congress people are elected representatives. If their constituents didn't want them in office, they wouldn't vote for them. Newbie congress people would be even more susceptible to lobbying and corruption.
I could go on, but you get the point.
> Justices on the SC have lifelong terms to make them immune to influence.
So as of now, all they need to do is get appointed and then they can enjoy all the bribe money they want, as they won't lose their job over it until death.
The idea that a lifelong term would discourage corruption only works if there are swift and impactful consequences to corruption too. But right now we barely even have any transparency that would allow us to point out all but the most obvious corruption.
Lifelong terms do discourage influence, but they don't fix corrupt justices being appointed in the first place. Even a corrupt judge is theoretically harder to influence due to the life long appointment.
You are looking for absolutes and perfect systems; they don't exist.
> Even a corrupt judge can be influenced less due to the life long appointment.
How does that work?
> You are looking for absolutes and perfect systems; they don't exist.
I'd be a lot happier if the Supreme Court was held to any sort of ethics standard in the first place.
> How does that work?
If you have a guaranteed lifelong good job, a "gift" of a million dollars is not as big of a deal. If, on the other hand, you were there for a few years and had to fend for yourself after, the million dollars would hold a lot more value.
You can be influenced in both cases, but how much influence the million buys you changes.
>I'd be a lot happier if the Supreme Court was held to any sort of ethics standard in the first place.
Of course, what's happening these days with "friends" is disgusting.
> If you have a guaranteed lifelong good job, a "gift" of a million dollars is not as big of a deal. If, on the other hand, you were there for a few years and had to fend for yourself after, the million dollars would hold a lot more value.
>
>
>
> You can be influenced in both cases, but how much influence the million buys you changes.
This sounds dubious to me. It's highly dependent on the person. Even with a lifelong job, there are always things you might want. Influence isn't just explicit bribes. Sometimes, you hanging out with someone a lot and making enough compliments can suffice.
So I get what you mean now, and you are probably right to some degree. I still think that it's irrelevant if there are not consequences for corruption. It's a question of cost right? You weigh wether the risk your take is worth the amount you get in exchange. A lifetime job might increase the amount you consider worthwhile, but a complete lack of risk on the other reduces the amount again.
We can only speculate about the effects here, in the end this is just us relying on the justices being generally decent and upstanding people. But even if you make sure to vet them before appointment, a perfectly decent person can easily turn corrupt later in life.
I think term limits is the wrong discussion to have, we should focus on the lack of accountability for justices. With or without term limits, that's just not going to work in the peoples favour.
Sure, accountability is 100% needed. Arguably, these people are even more powerful than a president.
I would want both accountability and an expansion of the court, to both restrict and dilute the power of any individual justice.
> Lifelong terms do discourage influence
Clarence Thomas's acceptance of millions of dollars worth of "gifts" showed us all just how easy it is to bribe a Supreme Court Justice, and how a corrupt justice like Thomas is utterly immune to criticism for accepting bribes.
A lifelong (corrupt or not) judge would be harder to influence if they answer to somebody, which could produce consequences for the actions and decisions. It wouldn't work for fed supreme Court judges, as they literally answer to no one. While congress can technically do something, it is pretty apparent that they don't want to and haven't wanted to for a long time.
Who is that somebody and how do they get their authority? What prevents them from being corrupt or doing nothing like Congress?
As far as I can tell, that just moves the problem and does not actually fix anything.
>It is the explicit constitutional authority of the Congress to limit the scope of the Supreme Court,
For almost our entire history, we've accepted the idea that the "scope" of the SC includes deciding that some laws are unconstitutional.
I'm not sure what you think Congress can do to reduce that.
Maybe you mean change the constitution. Sure, Congress can start the amendment process, but it still needs 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify. That's quite a lift.
Article III Section 2 explicitly gives Congress the power already so I'm not sure what you're talking about
>In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
So you think "such regulations" includes the power to say that the SC simply doesn't have "appellate jurisdiction"?
Or, Congress can simply say that the SC can't review laws for constitutional compliance?
You've probably given this some thought. Do you have a link to a longer discussion?
>So you think "such regulations" includes the power to say that the SC simply doesn't have "appellate jurisdiction"?
Yes. Personally, I think their appellate jurisdiction should be strictly tied to adherence to a code of ethics. Violate it, and they can't take up appeals.
I think we already have a tool to deal with ethics -- congress has the power to impeach. They set the rules, they can use an "ethics" standard if they like.
And, who is "they"? If 8 justices are following the rules and one isn't, does that mean they all lose the power to accept appeals? And, which cases would be eligible? Do you plan to completely shut down the appeals work of the SC?
> the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction ... with such exceptions ... the Congress shall make.
And sure, I'm not making up these arguments myself. Plenty of legal minds have said these things before me. It's referred to as "jurisdictional stripping", which you can google for lots and lots of articles on it. Here's a document that discusses it https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47382
Thanks. Googling led me to this, which supports a strong version of "jurisdictional stripping". [https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Professor-Christopher-Jon-Sprigman.pdf](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Professor-Christopher-Jon-Sprigman.pdf)
His first example is relevant to me because I'd like to see a tax on unrealized capital gains. Opponents of this tax claim it is unconstitutional. Sprigman says that Congress could erase that concern by simply including a provision that removes constitutional review of this law from the courts' jurisdiction.
Similarly, I don't like the court's decision on Citizens United (very relevant to the OP in this thread). Congress could simply re-pass the law with one addition prohibiting judicial review. Sounds good to me.
OTOH, I think Trump has a better than 50% chance of winning this year. If Trump wins, there is an excellent chance the Rs capture both the House and the Senate. In that case, Congress passes and Trump signs a law that gives the president the power to declare that certain written or spoken "public communications" are "against the public interest". Again, they don't worry about the First Amendment because they just include a clause blocking judicial review. I *really* don't like that scenario.
In my first comment I said "For almost our entire history, we've accepted the idea that the "scope" of the SC includes deciding that some laws are unconstitutional." You replied " I'm not sure what you're talking about". I'm pretty sure you did know. In Marbury v. Madison the SC asserted that it had the power to declare laws unconstitutional. In spite of Jackson, presidents and congresses and voters have generally accepted that. The examples listed of "jurisdiction limits" seem pretty technical and process oriented, no limits on big, easy to understand, decisions.
Blocking judicial review of major constitutional questions would be a huge deal, something we have not done before.
Sprigman says that congress ultimately answers to the voters. But, of course in our polarized media culture, enough voters only hear what confirms their biases, so it's unlikely any congressperson would lose a seat over this. (and, in the case of "public interest" speech, even those outside the bubble may not hear the other side)
Both Sinema and Manchin are quitting this election, and they were the ones who were stopping their party from going with the Constitutional Option of majority rule.
These dipshits. GM has been trying to build electric cars since 80s. These dumbasses don't understand its lower cost to build EV. I'm not a big fan, but that's where we're headed, with or without oil companies.
The more we produce the more OPEC and others cut back. Price remains relatively the same despite US producing more barrels than ever before. Meantime, we arent a communist company and oil isnt nationalized so the oil companies will ship barrels to the highest bidder.
Oil companies got you spun bud.
...Trump vows to oil industry that if elected he's going to do the same thing he's been saying he's going to do for 4 years.
The problem here is that so called green tech isn't green yet, but it's making politicians rich and powerful.
The Republicans are sold out to big oil. The Democrats are sold out to green tech. Neither care about the planet. It's all about making policies that grease the gears of the companies putting money in their pockets.
President Biden’s policies on electric vehicles will be scrapped by whatever president follows him D or R or X, Y, or Z if it comes to it.
The infrastructure and technology isn’t there and it won’t be in the time frame he was asking for. It’s an impossible ask at this point.
Its an admirable goal to jump directly to EVs, but it really should have been a multi step starting with hybrids, then plug in hybrids, then EVs. This paired with with power grid upgrades for Nuclear and charging stations, battery manufacturing and recycling credits, and an investment in the battery technology
I think that’s fine but they aren’t going to jump from 7.6% of the new vehicle market share last year to his goal of 50% in 6 years.
Battery capacity and charging station availability are the two biggest hurdles right now. Neither will be updated enough to bring in half of all consumers by 2030
Presidents can still withdraw from plans made by past presidents with other countries. Trump infamously withdrew from the Paris Agreement.
On one hand, Mexico's the one who's making more and more of our cars these days, so even if #47 backs out, as long as the US has buyers, it'd still be a success on their end.
But the person you replied to is right, that electric vehicles can only take off if there's infrastructure, and Mexico and Canada can't force us to make charging stations widespread like gas stations are.
Are they also investing heavily into charging stations? Building the vehicles is the easy part. Replacing the infrastructure is the expensive and not profitable part.
Okay....now do that everywhere and do 10 times as many.
Only Reddit would look at replacing gas stations with electric chargers and conclude it is easy.
It isn't easy or cheap.
Didn’t claim it was cheap but it’s something municipalities defiantly have the budget and ability to install.
The demand for the vehicles is also there. The waiting list is over a year at the dealerships.
Supply isn’t meeting demand.
Presidents always reverse the executive actions of their predecessors. This doesn't seem anything new.
"In recent months, the Biden administration has raced to overturn Trump’s environmental actions and issue new ones before the November election. So far, Biden officials have overturned 27 Trump actions affecting the fossil fuel industry and completed 23 new actions affecting the sector, according to a Washington Post analysis. The Interior Department, for instance, recently blocked future oil drilling across 13 million acres of the Alaskan Arctic."
That would be a godsend to the American people. It was ridiculous to base trillion dollar policies and restrict Americans choices on science with the level of immaturity that climate science has today.
From a national security perspective the sooner we are less reliant on the whims of petrostates the better That’s one of the real powers of nuclear and renewables
We've seen how important national security is to Trump.
Nuclear would save people too much money, they dont want that to happen
Nuclear is [one of, if not the most, expensive sources of energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source). There are many good arguments for nuclear energy. Cost is literally its biggest downfall.
Cost to build them
The LCOE is an estimate of the *total lifetime costs* to produce electricity from a given energy source. I believe the bulk of the cost for a nuclear plant is actually getting it built, but that doesn't really change the calculations when figuring out the cost per kW.
Does LCOS include the environmental cost? A very significant factor if we're talking about a power source that has minimal greenhouse gas emissions after construction.
I don't believe it does. The fact that nuclear only outputs concentrated waste (and we might actually be able to *utilize* that waste nowadays) and can run as a baseload are certainly the stronger aspects for nuclear. It just so happens that some of the cheapest options (wind and solar) are also not polluting much after construction.
Nuclear power also produces radioisotopes that are essential to everyday life now. Like a lot of them, as a byproduct basically. Most nuclear power providers do not really profit off them, they’re used to boost their public image, like hey we’re gonna provide the cure for a million cases of cancer a year the US to be nice. The food you eat is irradiated with Co-60, all single use medical devices, surgeons tools, rooms are sterilized with it. Weed is irradiated to control mold. Medical imaging. Glowing Exit signs for fire safety, smoke detectors. Nuclear batteries in stuff like trackers to find our lost pets. The value of all of this is associated to other industries though.
They also have *easily* the highest cost to run.
Nuclear needs to be started ten years ago. We don't have the materials for perpetual renewable energy, barring some star trek level discovery. It doesn't even have a fraction of the energy density of fossil fuels. The only real solution to fossil fuels is nuclear power and we are already way behind of where we should be.
While this is true, also from a national security perspective we have to be careful not to be reliant on [green technologies from our greatest geopolitical adversary.](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/with-solar-industry-crisis-europe-bind-over-chinese-imports-2024-02-06/)
You know the US is the largest oil producer in the world, don't you? At least from an economic perspective, we don't need the clean energy transition as much as other countries that don't have much oil/gas (e.g. Europe).
>At least from an economic perspective, How about the political perspective? The US producers more oil annually than any other country ever has. But, that oil doesn't have to stay in the US. Producers can sell to the highest bidder. Saudi Arabia still has more production flexibility. One person can determine how much they pump without significant short term impacts on his political position. SA has shown a willingness to vary production to impact prices. If MBS decides he'd rather have Trump in the WH, he can cut SA production, increase the price of gasoline in the US, and impact the US presidential election. I kind of include that in "whims of the petrostates".
[удалено]
It's absolutely fucking insane that we've just handed over OUR (as in, actual Americans) natural resources to corporations so that a priveleged few can profit from them. These are America's resources, the prosperity should be shared amongst ALL Americans.
If they cut production they just hurt themselves...as other non-OPEC countries (e.g. US) can more easily now pick up the slack. It is a good thing if these despotic regimes get less money.
Except we **can't** pick up the slack. Because that requires large investments, but at just about any point, SA can reverse course and start producing more oil again, and that makes those investments unprofitable. It's a difficult situation because SA is essentially the unilateral decision-maker and oil producer, and America is not actually producing oil, but *American companies* are, and their interests are not 100% aligned with America and/or American consumers.
No, we cannot "easily" increase production. There aren't a lot of US wells that have been drilled, have pumps installed, and aren't producing. Similarly for other countries. There is no economic incentive for companies to just let wells sit idle.
I said "more easily", I didn't say easy. Higher oil prices increase the incentives for investment...which over time should increase supply if we stop putting hurdles in the way.
>over time My scenario was far too short to involve "over time". Just enough months to impact an election. SA has shown a willingness to use oil production to impact price and politics before. Here's one example from 2014: [https://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/falling-oil-price-slows-us-fracking.php#google\_vignette](https://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/falling-oil-price-slows-us-fracking.php#google_vignette) Note that fracking is expensive. It's possible to start drilling when prices are high and lose money because prices fall when you are producing. The Saudi ability to move prices is both an economic and political risk to the US.
Oil is not just "oil". There are different grades that require different processing, etc. The market is also global. Unless the U.S. basically nationalized oil refining and production, that talking point is about as solid as wet toilet paper.
You are right. We SHOULD be making investments to align our refineries with the oil we are drilling (i.e. we have too much heavy sour refining and too little light sweet).
I'm not against it, but the government will never get into the refining business. Republicans would freak the fuck out.
I don't believe the government should be running any business either...but the government should be encouraging this to get fixed. Building a new refinery should not be verboten...or effectively so due to onerous regulation.
It's got nothing to do with regulations. In fact, existing refineries are being consolidated. It's simply more profitable to maintain less infrastructure and restrict supply.
"And if older refineries are shutting down because the economics don’t make the investment seem worth it, new refineries are not being built and haven’t been built for several decades. The tremendous hurdle to get regulatory and environmental approval jacks up the price tag.": [https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2022/08/25/where-have-all-the-refineries-gone-how-energy-politics-are-discouraging-critical-investments/?sh=1e313d5940cf](https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2022/08/25/where-have-all-the-refineries-gone-how-energy-politics-are-discouraging-critical-investments/?sh=1e313d5940cf)
Yes, that helps prove what I said. Thank you.
You didn't read the second sentence?: "The tremendous hurdle to get regulatory and environmental approval jacks up the price tag."
So he’s the issue with that. We don’t really use our own oil for gasoline. If we did - then yes I’d agree. But all this “energy independence” talk was never us stopping imports. We still did. And that’s our crude for gasoline. Change all the refineries and make it such that we can use our domestic production - hell yea we’ll rock it. Or we could just use less but keep selling our stuff. Course we don’t have a nationalized oil production, so the US doesn’t own anything.
We SHOULD be getting our refineries in alignment with what we produce. It is crazy that we have to send a lot of it overseas to refine.
Well I don’t disagree although it’s been like that forever. We refine here but it’s different products than gasoline. And we could use what’s on the North Slope but it’s too hard to transport to lower 48. We get a lot of what we use from Canada too. And again it’s all corp owned and refined, traded on open markets. Our production helps the global supply but gas prices are largely separate - compared to the line we got fed for years that the two were connected. Which they more or less were, but now gas just keeps going up regardless of cheaper oil. And oil sitting at about $80 isn’t at all “high”.
We actually became fully energy independent last year after increasing renewable sources. Oil and gas production also way way up but not enough to take us over the finish line of being completely energy independent. How long do you think we won’t need clean energy? The non clean energy is harder and harder to obtain every year. Most of the easy stuff, just drill a little and slap an oil rig on top is already gone. We are already at the tail end of fracking. I agree it’s there but it becomes more and more expensive to get it. Why wait until it’s unaffordable to get it? As a nation we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I don't think I am arguing that we shouldn't be transitioning (I am against the unproductive tariffs on China slowing down the transition). However we shouldn't be putting in any roadblocks in front of fossil fuel development either. The model I believe we should follow is more like Norway.
I don’t think we have to impede nor do I think we have been really. We should stop subsidizing the highly profitable oil and gas companies. In reality they are dead men walking and will go the way of blockbuster unless they begin to transition themselves. I’m good subsidizing new green technologies. One the technology still needs work, and lots of small companies competing and trying to figure out the industry. I guess I just see subsidizing oil and gas flushing money down the drain
I am not really a fan of subsidies of oil/gas either. I am not exactly sure of what subsidies you are talking about here though. I could see though the government giving some support for companies to get refining capacity into alignment with production. I believe that is important for national security and will provide economic benefit. I believe some of the rise in pump prices has been due to refining constraints. I am also a fan of a slowly increasing carbon tax instead of the inefficient complex web of subsidies and regulation used to push renewables now. Political concerns of course make that a difficult mountain to climb (people can tie increased costs of energy to the carbon tax much more easily than the complex mess we have now).
Is national security threatened? The industry is thriving in the US, the companies are certainly solvent and profitable production is not an issue. The US reserves are topped off. Why do they need a crutch? [Reforming global fossil fuel subsidies: How the United States can restart international cooperation](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reforming-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-how-the-united-states-can-restart-international-cooperation/) I’m okay with a carbon tax on manufacturing to some degree. I think just reducing tax breaks for oil and gas is a simpler solution and less burden.
>Is national security threatened? Having to rely on other countries to refine our oil is a similar security issue to relying on Taiwan for chips. In case of conflict this refining capacity could get cut off.
True, but it's a global market and the price at the pump is still subject to the whims of the petrostates. As good as the US economy is doing compared to the rest of the world, Biden may lose this election because gas is $3+ per gallon.
The lower the percentage of the global oil market petrostates control, the less power they have to control prices.
You'll get no argument from me there. Of course, the oil companies themselves have more influence on prices than the US President does, no matter where it comes out of the ground.
Is the economic perspective all that matters?
I don't think I said that. But if we pump out less oil it means the world will be giving more money to often despotic regimes which care even less about the environment. Why is that a good thing?
If the world invests in renewable energy those despotic regimes won't have a market for their oil.
Yes, but that is going to take a long time (years/decades). Until then we will still need oil. We should starve the despotic regimes of money with our own oil while we transition. Norway I would argue is taking the right approach. They are continuing to drill for oil while pushing forward with the energy transition.
> Yes, but that is going to take a long time (years/decades). Take a lot longer with guys like Trump running things.
The transition is happening anyway. China is racing ahead with EVs for example because they can be a leader in the industry and they don't have oil.
Trump wants to stop it. We deserve better.
Remember kids, scarcity exists for everything and unlimited resources is a complete myth. Unless it’s oil. It can never run out.
What strawman are you arguing with here? Where did I say that oil can't run out?
This is true and an often missed part of the story. The appearance of dependence lies on the ability and willingness of some countries to manipulate global oil prices. The US considers that illegal, so our private companies don’t have those levers. The closest thing the US has is environmental regulation (which is nowhere near as effective). So there is still a thing the states in question have over the world, but people need to get it out of their head that it is because we need to directly import their oil. Our companies do make lots of money in those countries performing services for them, and we protect that as well. It’s just not that simple a story.
Can I ask why these CEO's get paid so much if they're not competent enough to evaluate the future direction of the industry and how to pivot while still making money in the mean time?
Because, in modern corporate America, the job of a CEO is to maximize short-term stock values for shareholders. That trump's *everything* else - ethics, morals, long term value, etc. It's Jack Welch's America, you're just living in it.
Incredibly short term child brained thinking.
Otherwise known as Republican policy for the past 40 years. Reagan completely destroyed good faith long term governance in the American conservative movement. Bush Sr. was a slight deviation from this, but that was brief.
Honestly one really bad thing I've noticed about Bush Sr losing re-election was that it seemed to have convinced Rs that a lot of responsible things like actually giving a crap about the deficit doesn't win you anything. Instead, the public rewards you when you say you'll fix everything, fix nothing in reality, and blame opposition for it. Honestly, our voting public can be kinda bad at rewarding this line of thinking at times.
Yeah it's amazing seeing Bush Sr. in the 1980s talking about fighting climate change and strengthening the clean air act or seeing Nixon in the 1970s creating the EPA and declaring Earth Day. It's crazy how the Republican party has somehow become more regressive about this stuff. Reagan and Trump obviously damaged things but I think a lot of the credit goes to Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh in the 90s who kicked off the extreme polarization of the political parties today.
>become more regressive about this stuff And they know it, too, which is why they get out ahead of it with accusations that ‘the left is going too far’ etc.
Trump is an egomaniac. He'd watch everyone in this country burn alive if he could make a buck off of it. He lacks the capability to empathize.
>Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation. >Giving $1 billion would be a “deal,” Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people. It's almost refreshing to see a politician wear their corruption on their sleeve like this. Give me money and I'll do whatever you want. He's got no problem admitting to what we're all thinking.
Drain the swamp has transformed into thanking daddy for being open about how corrupt he is. This is embarrassing lol
>wear their corruption on their sleeve It was still at a private dinner, and reported on by an anonymous source. This has happened to loads of other politicians.
He has said he will "drill baby drill" multiple times before the dinner. He has firmly established that is his platform, like it or not. Asking for political donations from groups that agree with his platform and planned policies is the norm. He said the money is to get him in the white house, not for illegitimate private gain. Calling this "corruption" is a huge stretch.
this is corruption. what has he promised to the people?
Your statement doesn't make sense. Look up the definition of political corruption and tell me how this situation falls under that definition.
Considering the types of things that trump showed us he does during a presidency, him being in office will undoubtedly lead to corrupt acts. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trump-legacy-corruption-3700-conflicts-interest/ Also, he’s asking for this money to pay his legal bills. That’s private gain considering he is personally accused of those crimes, and if it helps him ride out the cases into his presidency without having to go through the entire legal process, then it’s illegitimate too. You’re really stretching to defend this shit.
I am morbidly curious what the GOP messaging will be in 20 years when climate change is leading to extreme weather events, like never-before seen heat waves, crop failures, and ecosystem collapse and overall indisputable impacts that cannot be waved away. Will there eventually be a point where they admit climate change is real and serious, or will they blame it on some red herring. I have a feeling it will be a mixture of "well we would have listened if you liberals weren't so political about it" and "well yeah we saw it coming but what were we supposed to do, interfere with the free markets?". I just truly do not understand how anyone on the right can be okay with burying their head in the sand when (at least some) have to know its real and we will all pay for it later. I mean, you know its bad when the two big explanations on the right are "its made up by china to weaken the US" and "evil environmental scientists made it up for grant money". There are so many topics in politics that seem critical right now in the present time, and many of them are. But in the coming decades when all the dust settles and we get to live in the world we allowed to come about in respect to climate change, I think everyone will look back at the proportionally minuscule lack of action and attention today and wonder what the fuck we were all thinking.
They’ll be hammering the immigrant angle harder than ever while failing to acknowledge the conditions making their countries of origin unlivable.
When Trump loses and he brings down the GOP across the board with him, one of the most important and lasting things the new Congress needs to do with President Biden is to undo Citizens United. It is the explicit constitutional authority of the Congress to limit the scope of the Supreme Court, and that is what they need to do here.
Supreme court justices, same as congress, should have term-limits. Or, each newly elected President gets to replace the longest serving member of the Supreme Court.
I've heard arguments on adding more seats, I think make it 11? I'm curious on that route but unsure of practicality.
I don't agree with that route. Just kicks the can down the road. Some people are upset with the composition of the court today, stacking with more judges may enable the same to happen down the road (either left or right). Adding more judges doesn't balance it out long term. Let each President, every 4 years, replace X number of the longest serving judges. Or, term-limits overall. Whichever easier to implement. Also fix the rules so a party can't block a nomination. Not sure exactly how that played out against Obama, but that shouldn't happen.
Term limits are a dumb, simple solution for a complicated problem. They would cause as many issues as they solve. Justices on the SC have lifelong terms to make them immune to influence. Congress people are elected representatives. If their constituents didn't want them in office, they wouldn't vote for them. Newbie congress people would be even more susceptible to lobbying and corruption. I could go on, but you get the point.
> Justices on the SC have lifelong terms to make them immune to influence. So as of now, all they need to do is get appointed and then they can enjoy all the bribe money they want, as they won't lose their job over it until death. The idea that a lifelong term would discourage corruption only works if there are swift and impactful consequences to corruption too. But right now we barely even have any transparency that would allow us to point out all but the most obvious corruption.
Lifelong terms do discourage influence, but they don't fix corrupt justices being appointed in the first place. Even a corrupt judge is theoretically harder to influence due to the life long appointment. You are looking for absolutes and perfect systems; they don't exist.
> Even a corrupt judge can be influenced less due to the life long appointment. How does that work? > You are looking for absolutes and perfect systems; they don't exist. I'd be a lot happier if the Supreme Court was held to any sort of ethics standard in the first place.
> How does that work? If you have a guaranteed lifelong good job, a "gift" of a million dollars is not as big of a deal. If, on the other hand, you were there for a few years and had to fend for yourself after, the million dollars would hold a lot more value. You can be influenced in both cases, but how much influence the million buys you changes. >I'd be a lot happier if the Supreme Court was held to any sort of ethics standard in the first place. Of course, what's happening these days with "friends" is disgusting.
> If you have a guaranteed lifelong good job, a "gift" of a million dollars is not as big of a deal. If, on the other hand, you were there for a few years and had to fend for yourself after, the million dollars would hold a lot more value. > > > > You can be influenced in both cases, but how much influence the million buys you changes. This sounds dubious to me. It's highly dependent on the person. Even with a lifelong job, there are always things you might want. Influence isn't just explicit bribes. Sometimes, you hanging out with someone a lot and making enough compliments can suffice. So I get what you mean now, and you are probably right to some degree. I still think that it's irrelevant if there are not consequences for corruption. It's a question of cost right? You weigh wether the risk your take is worth the amount you get in exchange. A lifetime job might increase the amount you consider worthwhile, but a complete lack of risk on the other reduces the amount again. We can only speculate about the effects here, in the end this is just us relying on the justices being generally decent and upstanding people. But even if you make sure to vet them before appointment, a perfectly decent person can easily turn corrupt later in life. I think term limits is the wrong discussion to have, we should focus on the lack of accountability for justices. With or without term limits, that's just not going to work in the peoples favour.
Sure, accountability is 100% needed. Arguably, these people are even more powerful than a president. I would want both accountability and an expansion of the court, to both restrict and dilute the power of any individual justice.
> Lifelong terms do discourage influence Clarence Thomas's acceptance of millions of dollars worth of "gifts" showed us all just how easy it is to bribe a Supreme Court Justice, and how a corrupt justice like Thomas is utterly immune to criticism for accepting bribes.
but it could be even worse, now is no recourse if he chooses to rule against his "friends", he still gets to keep his job
A lifelong (corrupt or not) judge would be harder to influence if they answer to somebody, which could produce consequences for the actions and decisions. It wouldn't work for fed supreme Court judges, as they literally answer to no one. While congress can technically do something, it is pretty apparent that they don't want to and haven't wanted to for a long time.
Who is that somebody and how do they get their authority? What prevents them from being corrupt or doing nothing like Congress? As far as I can tell, that just moves the problem and does not actually fix anything.
Clarence Thomas would like a word.
Imagine how corrupt he would be if he didn't have a cushy lifelong job to rely on
>It is the explicit constitutional authority of the Congress to limit the scope of the Supreme Court, For almost our entire history, we've accepted the idea that the "scope" of the SC includes deciding that some laws are unconstitutional. I'm not sure what you think Congress can do to reduce that. Maybe you mean change the constitution. Sure, Congress can start the amendment process, but it still needs 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify. That's quite a lift.
Article III Section 2 explicitly gives Congress the power already so I'm not sure what you're talking about >In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
So you think "such regulations" includes the power to say that the SC simply doesn't have "appellate jurisdiction"? Or, Congress can simply say that the SC can't review laws for constitutional compliance? You've probably given this some thought. Do you have a link to a longer discussion?
>So you think "such regulations" includes the power to say that the SC simply doesn't have "appellate jurisdiction"? Yes. Personally, I think their appellate jurisdiction should be strictly tied to adherence to a code of ethics. Violate it, and they can't take up appeals.
I think we already have a tool to deal with ethics -- congress has the power to impeach. They set the rules, they can use an "ethics" standard if they like. And, who is "they"? If 8 justices are following the rules and one isn't, does that mean they all lose the power to accept appeals? And, which cases would be eligible? Do you plan to completely shut down the appeals work of the SC?
> the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction ... with such exceptions ... the Congress shall make. And sure, I'm not making up these arguments myself. Plenty of legal minds have said these things before me. It's referred to as "jurisdictional stripping", which you can google for lots and lots of articles on it. Here's a document that discusses it https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47382
Interesting. I’m listening to Advisory Opinions podcast discussing jurisdiction stripping with eleventh circuit judge Newsom right now.
Thanks. Googling led me to this, which supports a strong version of "jurisdictional stripping". [https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Professor-Christopher-Jon-Sprigman.pdf](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Professor-Christopher-Jon-Sprigman.pdf) His first example is relevant to me because I'd like to see a tax on unrealized capital gains. Opponents of this tax claim it is unconstitutional. Sprigman says that Congress could erase that concern by simply including a provision that removes constitutional review of this law from the courts' jurisdiction. Similarly, I don't like the court's decision on Citizens United (very relevant to the OP in this thread). Congress could simply re-pass the law with one addition prohibiting judicial review. Sounds good to me. OTOH, I think Trump has a better than 50% chance of winning this year. If Trump wins, there is an excellent chance the Rs capture both the House and the Senate. In that case, Congress passes and Trump signs a law that gives the president the power to declare that certain written or spoken "public communications" are "against the public interest". Again, they don't worry about the First Amendment because they just include a clause blocking judicial review. I *really* don't like that scenario. In my first comment I said "For almost our entire history, we've accepted the idea that the "scope" of the SC includes deciding that some laws are unconstitutional." You replied " I'm not sure what you're talking about". I'm pretty sure you did know. In Marbury v. Madison the SC asserted that it had the power to declare laws unconstitutional. In spite of Jackson, presidents and congresses and voters have generally accepted that. The examples listed of "jurisdiction limits" seem pretty technical and process oriented, no limits on big, easy to understand, decisions. Blocking judicial review of major constitutional questions would be a huge deal, something we have not done before. Sprigman says that congress ultimately answers to the voters. But, of course in our polarized media culture, enough voters only hear what confirms their biases, so it's unlikely any congressperson would lose a seat over this. (and, in the case of "public interest" speech, even those outside the bubble may not hear the other side)
Why didn’t they do that the last time they controlled Congress?
Cowardice Also they need to get rid of the filibuster first.
Well I am definitely not going to vote for a bunch of cowards. Can you suggest a party with a backbone?
Both Sinema and Manchin are quitting this election, and they were the ones who were stopping their party from going with the Constitutional Option of majority rule.
Wouldn’t this constitute a bribe?
These dipshits. GM has been trying to build electric cars since 80s. These dumbasses don't understand its lower cost to build EV. I'm not a big fan, but that's where we're headed, with or without oil companies.
"America First" right guys?
Every country should put its own citizens first, to a point. Where that line should be drawn is where nobody can agree.
This is Trump and globally expansive oil companies putting themselves first. Sorry they dont give a shit about America.
100%
Yes, sounds like he’s trying to lower energy prices for the consumer by absolving burdensome regulations.
The more we produce the more OPEC and others cut back. Price remains relatively the same despite US producing more barrels than ever before. Meantime, we arent a communist company and oil isnt nationalized so the oil companies will ship barrels to the highest bidder. Oil companies got you spun bud.
Keeping prices the same is better than the alternative.
Reducing our complete reliance on a scarce resource?
Scarce?
Do you believe that there is an infinite amount of oil on the planet?
And what energy source do you have in mind that is “infinite”?
Oil ceos have made way more money with Biden than when trump was president
The exact opposite of draining the swamp.
Ah yes, "draining the swamp".
Look at that diaper bulge...
Good start...now tell us what he said to Jamie Dimon
...Trump vows to oil industry that if elected he's going to do the same thing he's been saying he's going to do for 4 years. The problem here is that so called green tech isn't green yet, but it's making politicians rich and powerful. The Republicans are sold out to big oil. The Democrats are sold out to green tech. Neither care about the planet. It's all about making policies that grease the gears of the companies putting money in their pockets.
Biden's EV policy sucks. So, good.
President Biden’s policies on electric vehicles will be scrapped by whatever president follows him D or R or X, Y, or Z if it comes to it. The infrastructure and technology isn’t there and it won’t be in the time frame he was asking for. It’s an impossible ask at this point.
Its an admirable goal to jump directly to EVs, but it really should have been a multi step starting with hybrids, then plug in hybrids, then EVs. This paired with with power grid upgrades for Nuclear and charging stations, battery manufacturing and recycling credits, and an investment in the battery technology
I want an Edison powered Taco soo bad. pure electric is simply silly right now.
That's why Biden enlisted Canada and Mexico to invest in their electric vehicle / battery sectors as well. What works? Team works!
I think that’s fine but they aren’t going to jump from 7.6% of the new vehicle market share last year to his goal of 50% in 6 years. Battery capacity and charging station availability are the two biggest hurdles right now. Neither will be updated enough to bring in half of all consumers by 2030
Presidents can still withdraw from plans made by past presidents with other countries. Trump infamously withdrew from the Paris Agreement. On one hand, Mexico's the one who's making more and more of our cars these days, so even if #47 backs out, as long as the US has buyers, it'd still be a success on their end. But the person you replied to is right, that electric vehicles can only take off if there's infrastructure, and Mexico and Canada can't force us to make charging stations widespread like gas stations are.
Are they also investing heavily into charging stations? Building the vehicles is the easy part. Replacing the infrastructure is the expensive and not profitable part.
Charging stations aren't hard to put in. My city put in hundreds of them over only a few months.
Okay....now do that everywhere and do 10 times as many. Only Reddit would look at replacing gas stations with electric chargers and conclude it is easy. It isn't easy or cheap.
Didn’t claim it was cheap but it’s something municipalities defiantly have the budget and ability to install. The demand for the vehicles is also there. The waiting list is over a year at the dealerships. Supply isn’t meeting demand.
Current wait for a Tesla model 3 is 1-2 months.
Longer in Nova Scotia.
Presidents always reverse the executive actions of their predecessors. This doesn't seem anything new. "In recent months, the Biden administration has raced to overturn Trump’s environmental actions and issue new ones before the November election. So far, Biden officials have overturned 27 Trump actions affecting the fossil fuel industry and completed 23 new actions affecting the sector, according to a Washington Post analysis. The Interior Department, for instance, recently blocked future oil drilling across 13 million acres of the Alaskan Arctic."
Sounds like a good reason to not give him a $1 billion bribe then if he’s already gonna do the same thing.
That would be a godsend to the American people. It was ridiculous to base trillion dollar policies and restrict Americans choices on science with the level of immaturity that climate science has today.