- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Fantasy World
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:12 am
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:12 am
The New York Times
The Green Transition Is Happening Fast. The Climate Bill Will Only Speed It Up.
Opinion by David Wallace-Wells
Among the first things you likely heard about the Inflation Reduction Act was its size.
The bill, signed into law by President Biden on Tuesday, makes $369 billion in climate and energy investments — by far the largest such investment in American history. Its many supporters have called it “transformational” and a “game changer.”
But there are several ways to measure the size of a bill, and given how high the country’s emissions targets are, even many of the I.R.A.’s supporters will openly concede that it is, on its own, inadequate. With overall investments of $437 billion, it is just one-fortieth of the size of Senator Bernie Sanders’s $16 trillion Green New Deal campaign package, one-twentieth of the size of Jay Inslee’s $9 trillion proposal and less than one-third of the size of Biden’s Build Back Better Act, which passed Congress last fall. Adjusted for inflation, the clean energy provisions of the I.R.A. are only about three times the size of the clean energy spending tucked into President Barack Obama’s Recovery Act of 2009, and less than half the total size of the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed last fall. In fact, the infrastructure bill spent about half as much on climate and clean energy provisions as this one does, though it focused on long-term research and development rather than cutting emissions today.
But at the risk of playing Pollyanna, I think it is also possible to see the size of the bill — its relative smallness — as at least a mark of good news. A bigger expenditure would have achieved more, of course. But emissions trajectories are not narrowly a matter of public policy, and the broader economic and cultural landscape is so different now than it was just a few years ago that public investments of even this somewhat smaller scale appear poised to make an enormous difference.
That’s because those public investments are being made not against dirty-energy headwinds but with the support of much broader tailwinds — and pretty intense ones. Thanks to technological change and the plunging cost of renewables, a growing political and cultural focus on decarbonization and increasing awareness of the public health costs of pollution and market trends for things like electric vehicles and heat pumps, it’s genuinely a whole new world out there. Not that long ago, the upfront cost of a green transition looked almost incalculably large. Today it seems plausible that quite dramatic emissions gains can be achieved for just, say, $369 billion — with an estimated payoff of nine million new American jobs, to boot. The average American household might pay $1,800 less a year for energy, too.
LINK
The Green Transition Is Happening Fast. The Climate Bill Will Only Speed It Up.
Opinion by David Wallace-Wells
Among the first things you likely heard about the Inflation Reduction Act was its size.
The bill, signed into law by President Biden on Tuesday, makes $369 billion in climate and energy investments — by far the largest such investment in American history. Its many supporters have called it “transformational” and a “game changer.”
But there are several ways to measure the size of a bill, and given how high the country’s emissions targets are, even many of the I.R.A.’s supporters will openly concede that it is, on its own, inadequate. With overall investments of $437 billion, it is just one-fortieth of the size of Senator Bernie Sanders’s $16 trillion Green New Deal campaign package, one-twentieth of the size of Jay Inslee’s $9 trillion proposal and less than one-third of the size of Biden’s Build Back Better Act, which passed Congress last fall. Adjusted for inflation, the clean energy provisions of the I.R.A. are only about three times the size of the clean energy spending tucked into President Barack Obama’s Recovery Act of 2009, and less than half the total size of the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed last fall. In fact, the infrastructure bill spent about half as much on climate and clean energy provisions as this one does, though it focused on long-term research and development rather than cutting emissions today.
But at the risk of playing Pollyanna, I think it is also possible to see the size of the bill — its relative smallness — as at least a mark of good news. A bigger expenditure would have achieved more, of course. But emissions trajectories are not narrowly a matter of public policy, and the broader economic and cultural landscape is so different now than it was just a few years ago that public investments of even this somewhat smaller scale appear poised to make an enormous difference.
That’s because those public investments are being made not against dirty-energy headwinds but with the support of much broader tailwinds — and pretty intense ones. Thanks to technological change and the plunging cost of renewables, a growing political and cultural focus on decarbonization and increasing awareness of the public health costs of pollution and market trends for things like electric vehicles and heat pumps, it’s genuinely a whole new world out there. Not that long ago, the upfront cost of a green transition looked almost incalculably large. Today it seems plausible that quite dramatic emissions gains can be achieved for just, say, $369 billion — with an estimated payoff of nine million new American jobs, to boot. The average American household might pay $1,800 less a year for energy, too.
LINK
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:13 am to djmed
Then they better embrace something other than solar panels and windmills to charge all of those cars.
Idiots
Idiots
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:14 am to djmed
quote:
by David Wallace-Wells
What happens when we get another big freeze like what happened in Texas? Or when the “climate change” brings on prolonged periods of record heat waves?
This post was edited on 8/18/22 at 8:19 am
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:14 am to djmed
They are trying to push the infrastructure to get what they want. I don't believe there is enough in the Bill to get even that done. Putting the proverbial cart before the horse.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:15 am to djmed
quote:
The average American household might pay $1,800 less a year for energy, too.
This only occurs if the government continues to subsidize “green” energy. Reducing consumer’s options for energy, cars, etc will only increase the costs of these products.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:15 am to djmed
quote:
The average American household might pay $1,800 less a year for energy, too.
Great and they will pay $3,600 more in taxes per year... What a deal, what a deal...
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:16 am to djmed
Completely out of touch. Pukes like this seem to be incapable of grasping the observable reality in Europe and are unmoved by what is unfolding in our economy at this very moment. Historians will look back on this time in our history with pity and wonder.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:17 am to djmed
quote:Now do China and India.
The Green Transition Is Happening Fast. The Climate Bill Will Only Speed It Up.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:20 am to The Maj
quote:
The average American household might pay $1,800 less a year for energy, too.
Nobody talks about this.
With greater demand for energy in the form of electricity, you don’t think it’s going to stay the same price per kilowatt hour as it is now do you?
We are lucky if it doesn’t at least double with that high of demand.
90% of the infrastructure will have to be redone to handle the higher voltage.
Are people this ignorant or are they just taking us for a ride?
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:28 am to djmed
Are these people really this stupid?
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:29 am to Septiger
quote:
Are these people really this stupid?
Yes and they are pushing a narrative for the lemmings... The lemmings believe this is a good thing...
Posted on 8/18/22 at 9:17 am to djmed
I heard someone say the other day that our emission reduction numbers are simply a shell game. Suddenly it all made sense. We love to tout our numbers vs China and India, but the simple fact that gets overlooked is that we’ve offloaded the vast amount of our manufacturing capabilities to those countries. Not only did we ship those jobs overseas for cheaper labor, but we offloaded “our” emissions as well. It’s really a zero sum game where nothing is actually being reduced. This is why when you look at the green new deal, we take it in the junk while China and India get to keep polluting. Holding them to the same standards would simply drive up the cost of cheap goods. The GND is nothing more than crony capitalism that ensures that cheap manufacturing remains overseas and punishes any efforts to return those industries here. Btw, it was Trump who made it a huge priority to bring back those jobs, and he shite all over these climate agreements… Trump is a threat to billions possibly trillions of dollars of profits via cheap labor, or as Dems and Never Trumper’s chamber of Commerce Republicans call it… democracy.
This post was edited on 8/18/22 at 9:19 am
Posted on 8/18/22 at 9:20 am to The Maj
Yes people are really This stupid
They also believe that all those new IRS agents will be enforcing on the rich only so they can FINALLY pay their fair share
Because if you were to market it as them gonna go after the smaller business and private citizens, it wouldn’t go over very well, even though it’s obviously what will happen
Have to knowingly bait and switch the populace
Hard times are coming
They also believe that all those new IRS agents will be enforcing on the rich only so they can FINALLY pay their fair share
Because if you were to market it as them gonna go after the smaller business and private citizens, it wouldn’t go over very well, even though it’s obviously what will happen
Have to knowingly bait and switch the populace
Hard times are coming
Posted on 8/18/22 at 9:24 am to djmed
quote:
The average American household might pay $1,800 less a year for energy, too
Who made this bullshite up?
Trying to force Green Energy down people’s throat will drive energy prices up, not down. Expect at least double your monthly cost if those morons get their way.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 9:48 am to Errerrerrwere
they just toss aside the fact that the WORLD ECONOMY is based on petroleum
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News