> FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the
production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of
job-producing American energy reserves,
including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal
This is what I have the biggest problem with. The ONLY WAY we are going to continue making progress towards widespread clean renewable energy is if it is financially beneficial for corporations to continue investing in R&D. Sure, there are some outliers that will stick with it on principal, but the majority will go where the money is. Cheaper fossil fuels == less investment in renewable energy. Period. This is bad timing given the critical point we are at (so far as we know) regarding climate change.
This is pure short-sightedness motivated by the desire to deliver on his promise of creating jobs.
The fact that the term "clean coal" can be bandied about with a straight face says something about the state of science education of the general public. (Pretty much the same knowledge needed to instantly realize that various wind/solar operated water-from-air devices and Solar Freakin Roadways aren't viable from back of the envelope calcs.)
Sure, not ideal, but as long as there's nothing that says "you must spend as much or more energy to separate and sequester harmful by-products than you get from the reaction" we shouldn't mock people for at least entertaining the idea. 30% sounds like a reasonable number, interesting to know.
Whether that's a commercially viable amount or not, I have no idea. And your last point, I agree with. We should certainly make the coal industry include externalities in their price as much as feasible, making for a (more) fair energy market.
Sure, not ideal, but as long as there's nothing that says "you must spend as much or more energy to separate and sequester harmful by-products than you get from the reaction" we shouldn't mock people for at least entertaining the idea.
No, we should mock people for entertaining the idea and being unable to muster enough knowledge and reason to start being very skeptical. It's basically the same sort of estimation that happens when watching Shark Tank and wondering, "Well, that's a nifty product. What are the margins?" Basic Thermodynamics isn't too far off from accounting. There's a big difference between "works technically, in theory" and "would it work in the real world?" Essentially, you're saying it's okay that people can spout basic science, but still can't apply it in their actual lives in a market economy. Shouldn't that be the lower bar?
You said that entertaining the idea of "clean coal" is a referendum on science education in our country.
I'm saying that the idea is completely compatible with science, and at a cursory inspection seems like a completely viable solution. There's no education problem involved in at least discussing it.
Is coal at ~70% efficiency a better solution than nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.? I'm not sure, but that is sure as hell not snake oil.
If it takes you 30% of the initial energy to get to the heat->electricity phase, then the heat->electricity phase receives 70% of the initial energy. From that point, a 35% efficient transfer means 24.5% efficiency from the initial energy.
While capturing and liquifying the CO2 may prevent immediate release into the atmosphere, you still have to do something with it. Where would you sequester a billion gallons of liquified CO2 each year?
That is exactly the issue. If you really want to solidify the carbon for long term storage, you'd have to spend more energy than you gain in the first place. At least I'm not aware of a process that could capture CO2 for long term storage with only a fraction of the Carbon-to-Carbon binding energy (which is what you gain when burning, minus the C-O2 binding.
That's not simple thermodynamics. That's not even appealing to thermodynamic laws at all, other than "it can't be free (unless we can get energy from the captured product)", and that only guarantees that the percentage will be nonzero.
Until you get into the particulars of burning coal and CO2 capture with feasible equipment (which aren't simple), for all you know the loss is 0.1%
> This sequestration process costs about 30% of the energy originally extracted from the coal.
This tells me nothing about economic viability - for a while the solar panel efficiency was rated in single digit percentages, and even today it's low double digits.
With that 30% waste incorporated what is my final cost of a kWh produced by an electric plant that's running 100% on clean coal?
No, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. The pollutants from coal burning are waste products like CO and NO2. If you can capture those, or find ways to burn the coal "cleaner" to only produce beneficial CO2 and heat, the problem is solved.
I think that's a little harsh. There's no first principle that the average citizen should know that says "clean coal" isn't possible.
The average US citizen probably knows that burning carbon-based fuels re-forms molecular bonds, in such a way that the resulting stuff (CO2 and water) embodies much lower energy. Just start applying that concept to the notion of capturing that carbon. The result is that you're going to wind up with a lot less usable energy, or that the stuff you wind up combining the carbon with embodies even less energy than the oxygen. But since coal is already one of the cheapest chemical fuels around, what in the world will that be?
In other words: Basic Thermodynamics. Unfortunately it's true: The average US citizen doesn't know enough basic thermodynamics to rule out obvious boondoggles. That's about the level of gullibility of a 19th century person who buys snake oil.
> the result is you're going to wind up with a lot less usable energy
Nothing in those "basic thermodynamics" conclusions, which I agree are obviously true, implies that it's commercially nonviable. Yes, it will by necessity be more expensive than dirty coal. Will it be more expensive than anything else? I'm not sure. It would require advanced knowledge of sequestering methods and the energy market. Certainly more than basic thermodynamics.
To be honest, you're the one making the mistake here by assigning "clean coal" to being snake oil with only basic thermodynamics in play. Without more knowledge than that, there's no reason it couldn't be the most viable clean energy option.
That's pretty much the same thing as knowing that solar panels can charge a battery, that battery can run LEDs and heating elements, then stopping there and concluding that Solar Freakin Roadways can be a thing. In other words, that's just enough knowledge to spout science, but not enough to actually apply it to actual life.
I don't think this is a reflection on the amount of usable sunlight on that hits the surface of the earth. It sounds more like a vague, general statement and isn't backed by calculations in the article.
The late Professor McKay (whose book on information theory and ML is neat by the way) published a great book full of climate back of the envelope calculations, Whithout the Hot Air, which is available online[1]. He clearly disagrees with this statement, as seen in the recap figure on page 103[2].
"This theoretical potential represents more energy striking the earth’s surface in one and a half hours (480 EJ) than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ)."
Not back of envelope. Energy calculations worked through.
EDIT: Solar is a better investment than the S&P500. If US corporations were looking for some place to invest those trillions of dollars they won't repatriate [1], seems like renewables would be a perfect fit.
"Eight of the biggest U.S. technology companies added a combined $69 billion to their stockpiled offshore profits over the past year, even as some corporations in other industries felt pressure to bring cash back home.
Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and five other tech firms now account for more than a fifth of the $2.10 trillion in profits that U.S. companies are holding overseas, according to a Bloomberg News review of the securities filings of 304 corporations. The total amount held outside the U.S. by the companies was up 8 percent from the previous year, though 58 companies reported smaller stockpiles."
McKay uses something very close to this (as you said) theoretical value as the starting point of its calculations for how much can effectively be extracted.
Put out of work coal miners on social security early at their full benefit and fund it with a carbon tax. This doesn't even need to be a carbon tax; simply a transfer from the general fund.
The average coal miner salary is ~$22/hr, or ~$42k/year. 174,000 coal workers in the US @ $31,668k/year (the max SS benefit permitted) = $5.5 billion/year. This is not expensive, nor in perpetuity, only the years from now until they would've hit their full retirement age regardless, not to mention the cost savings from drug addiction and other social negatives currently occurring from the industry collapsing (please, please, please take the 2 minutes to read this footnote) [1].
People should not be harmed by our transition to renewables, and it is laughable that we can't afford to take care of those no longer employed within the economy.
This is not unprecedented. The shipping industry used redundancy payments to transition longshoremen out of the workforce when containerization exploded, funded by profits from the efficiency gains of containerization. I'm simply arguing for the formalization of the process, and administration through the Social Security Administration (one of the most efficient orgs in the US government).
To be clear: I am essentially advocating a bridge basic income for these workers. Not subsidies, not incentives. You quit your job at the coal mine or coal generator today, and you're
retired from the coal industry.
EDIT: @derekdahmer & @ArkyBeagle: I'm not requiring someone to retire if they don't want to. I'm simply ensuring they don't fall into poverty. What more can be done when your job is destroying the environment? Allow it to continue? That is unacceptable. I'm not proposing welfare, I'm proposing financial freedom to explore other options to find purpose and self actualize.
This attitude is why democrats have so much trouble understanding why republicans have so much support from working class voters. People don't want to go on welfare, they want a job.
It's about identity. Free money can keep you fed but it can't give you a sense of pride and self worth.
> People don't want to go on welfare, they want a job.
That right there is pretty much the issue. We could take china's approach and specifically limit the use of heavy equipment to X hours per day, requiring everything else to be done by hand. But that's stupid pointless makework, that takes longer and costs more.
With free money, maybe some people learn a trade, start a band, write a book. Send people to school and maybe we get some value back in 5-10 years.
I understand that people want to take a job on the line at the plant, just like dad did. Well, tough. The world isn't like that anymore.
Policies might "encourage" Apple to do it's manufacturing in the U.S. A U.S. iphone factory would employ about 15 people. the security team that keeps people away from the machines.
The way to stop feeling useless is to stop being useless. Don't want money to help figure out what you can do? Well, ok, best of luck.
edit
This may come off as mean, bitter, heartless, uncaring, vile , reprehensible and whatever other adjectives you want to throw in.
Small towns are dying because there's not much reason to be there. We can subsidize them in a bunch of ways, but it's still just welfare.
The obvious rebuttal to this is that those small towns now control the government. You want progressive policies? Well, tough.
Rural areas are coping with exploding rates of meth, heroin, and opioid abuse, and a lot of that is directly caused by the absolutely shit quality of life they all have.
You're far from the first liberal to regard rural people with contempt, and that's a big part of why we now have President Trump to contend with.
Maybe it's time to start taking other people's problems a little more seriously.
You're right. I grew up in a very small rural town. I have a tendency to not take them seriously. The problem for me is that I've never heard any other group of people spew so much hate and bigotry as people in that small town. The treatment of minorities in that town was heartbreaking. The way I was treated for not blindly accepting the christian faith was terrible. I used to hide physics book under my bed so they would not be taken from me and thrown away.
As an adult, I find it really difficult to care about their problems at all. However, the fact is, unless we do show compassion and take their issues seriously, the current situation will only get worse.
I learned to drive a tractor when i was about 10 years old, and it was a blast. Nearest neighbors were a mile away. Going to the rodeo was a big deal. It was really great.
But the writing was on the wall back then. There's like 4 jobs in the country where horseback riding is useful. It's nothing more than an expensive hobby for the well off.
> The obvious rebuttal to this is that those small towns now control the government.
No, not even remotely. A billionaire city slicker controls the government.
> Maybe it's time to start taking other people's problems a little more seriously.
Eh, maybe. I don't think we need to make it so damn hard for people to get ahead, or even have a chance. But, of course, my guy lost. But maybe not. No election coming up, all there is for me to do is figure out how big my tax cut is going to be, and figure out where that goes in the IRA.
No tariff is going to make my home town thrive. There are no jobs there.
I can't help but think of the duke:
Devlin: I don't know what to say. Never begged before. Turned my stomach. I suppose I should have been grateful that you gave me the job.
McLintock: Gave? Boy, you've got it all wrong. I don't give jobs I hire men.
Drago: You intend to give this man a full day's work, don'tcha boy?
Devlin Warren: You mean you're still hirin' me? Well, yes, sir, I certainly deliver a fair day's work.
McLintock: And for that I'll pay you a fair day's wage. You won't give me anything and I won't give you anything. We both hold up our heads.
But when i tell old friends from high school to come where the work is, they just shake their heads.
My friends that are too fucking hard headed to figure out something better than drinking and bellyaching. Go back to school? Learn a new trade? fuck no.
I'll help people learn to be useful, but i'm not interested in paying someone to make saddles. Sure, it's fun. Turns out they're just not good enough at it to earn a living doing it. Do fucking something else, and make saddles as a fucking hobby. Be a goddamn grownup.
As a, as you put it, "liberal that regards rural people with contempt", i think these three things would improve things for lots of people.
1. Pay police well. Like, double it, and hold police to very high standards.
2. Pay teachers well. Like, double it, and hold teachers to very high standards.
3. Tie tax rates for businesses to local economies. The worse the economy, the bigger the break, the smaller the business, the bigger the break.
But again, i'm a contemptuous liberal that just got told i'm full of shit.
So, seriously, what the fuck am i supposed to do? "take problems seriously?" that's a bullshit rhetorical jab that contains zero useful information.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but Trump has no chance of helping those workers, except by bussing them to New York to polish his acres of marble and glass.
Then give them jobs in the parks service, pay them to clean up old mine sites, pay them to plant trees, pay them to install fiber optics lines, or anything.
This creates an intractable problem when their job is deemed too dangerous for a civilization to allow to continue.
If someone's job is their identity, and their job harms others, what are some other possible solutions? (Retraining runs into similar issues as you mentioned -- coal miners don't want to become keyboard jockeys, they want their sense of pride and self worth for doing the profession they trained for.)
Not sure about the politics, but yes. And as someone commented below, we're going to have to find socially useful jobs for another swath of blue-collar men soon, when all the trucks go automonomous. This is a BIG problem - any ideas?
Then they may accept their fate of poverty and most likely an early death if they prefer not to accept society's helping hand when their job is obsolete. That does not mean the offer should not be there for them.
Why not, instead of putting them on Social Security, subsidize the installation of solar and wind generation facilities in areas that previously were economically driven by coal mining, and then provide training programs so those displaced miners instead are attractive to employers as workers that can manage and maintain the new electricity generation networks? A single coal-fired power plant can generate far more electricity than a single solar panel or wind turbine, and keeping those up and running will need a lot more hands.
Average coal miner salary is ~$22/hr, or ~$42k/year.
Social security safety net is better than 0, which is where coal is going to regardless, no matter how much we attempt to prop it up. Can't compete against fuels with zero marginal cost. Every coal company in the US is currently bankrupt.
I am open to better ideas if you have them. My proposal removes coal-fired generation and provides for workers at the same time, affordably.
We're talking a difference of $10k/year, that's a lot of money. And you're speaking of miners at the lowest rungs of the ladder: what of those more experienced, or the geologists and mining engineers who are paid 2--3 times more?
Your solution doesn't provide for the workers. I'm sure you're sincere, but a handout from the government is not perceived as a substitute for challenging, meaningful, and respectable work. Basic income proposals don't generally seem to consider pride, other than what I see as nebulous handwaving about how one would be free to pursue their dreams. What dreams are there in coal country when there is no coal? I don't see BI alone as helping to sustain or resurrect a community and associated way of life whose primary industry is one you've eliminated.
I haven't figured out how to make myself happy in life; creating a societal structure that allows for everyone to find what makes them happy is far beyond my limited capabilities. Ensuring that people don't go hungry or die from exposure is within my grasp.
you bull-shiting from your arm chair is your attempt to solve this issue of pride meaningfulness in life. this is pretty meta, but are you really lacking this much self-awareness? Workers want to do productive meaningful work. This is why many flock to startups with all its risk. People want interesting work and yet you do not seem to understand that.
You make good points. We do have to figure out ways to transition out of a particular industry. Open questions (not aimed at parent): Have transitions like these been made successfully in the past? Are there particularly bad examples of what we should make sure we avoid (Detroit)? We can't be the first to have thought about this. Anyone know of studies/histories we can refer to?
But in a society where personal identity is increasingly at risk, you can't pay for that. It's fiction, but you end up with at least a few Boyd Crowder characters from "Justified."
FWIW, this is how Trump voters are made. And at least in the U.S., the coal industry looks done.
Except it’s not nearly a large enough employer to single-handedly prop up the places where it dominates. Coal mining has been substantially automated compared to a few decades ago, and the total number of coal jobs is down to a small fraction of its peak.
Even if we doubled or tripled coal production, local economies in coal country would still be limping. It’s not like executives/stockholders of coal companies are dumping all their profits back into the local economy.
As a country/world we’d be better off paying former coal workers a living wage indefinitely, no strings attached, for nothing in return but keeping the coal in the ground.
The US already employs more people in the solar industry than the coal industry. We could conceivably make a policy like big federal wage subsidies to renewable companies willing to relocate to West Virginia or wherever.
Do you think there isn't any remaining connection between labor and coal's political resilience? Coal-politics could be explained as a lobbied interest, but that doesn't feel like a complete enough picture to me.
I think this is one of the reasons the election went the way it did, and I'm as guilty as anyone.
You can't discount pride. You can't discount being trained and good at a difficult job, and proud at being the one who does it. Money from the government doesn't replace that in the hierarchy of needs. And job retraining is tough when you're 40+.
> We could conceivably make a policy like big federal wage subsidies to renewable companies willing to relocate to West Virginia or wherever
I wonder if the renewables need the labor? If so, I can see that working. If not, then really the only problem is how to handle political dissatisfaction in the short term, and (perhaps) thus our election today.
Brief research suggests there might be a few tens of thousands of new jobs if the industry massively expands using the average level of automation of existing plant (of course the expansion will use higher levels of automation).
I guess from many perspectives that is a lot of jobs, but it isn't that many jobs.
It's enough to help tens of thousands of families and revitalize their communities (they'll be spending most of their earnings somewhere). In Appalachia that could make a huge impact on quality of life.
For what it's worth, I grew up in an Appalachian coal town. Coal development will have minimal impact on quality of life. The future for them is bleak, regardless of a Trump or Clinton presidency.
1) Coal was already in decline in the 90s. This isn't a government problem. This is a supply & demand problem. The demand for coal has declined.
2) Automation has drastically reduced the number of miners needed to actually operate a single mine. The # of jobs needed simply will not materialize.
3) Coal is losing the competition to alternative energy sources. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-s... )
4) China has been operating at excess production capacity already (http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-coal-plant-binge-deepens-... )
This is a problem of a group of people failing to come to terms with the harsh realities of a capitalistic system. While their local and national leaders (I'm looking at you, McConnell) continually tell them that coal can be 'brought back'. It can't. Many of the same leaders know the truth, but to lie to the people is politically advantageous for them.
Four years from now Appalachian coal towns will be in worse shape, and even more pissed off. They need leaders that actually respect them to tell them the truth.
I'm from Kentucky as well. An earmark by Mitch McConnell secured funding for my first job out of university (WKU). He did good work for us in Bowling Green at least.
That said, I don't have any illusion that the future isn't bleak in coal country. My extended family has become substantially poorer over the last two decades -- from middle class to poverty. Still, we're working with what we've got. Every job created changes a life. At the very least it can be a bridge toward more opportunity -- that McConnell funded job was for me.
Honestly, I have no doubt that McConnell is a good and reasonable person. I do feel lots of frustration with him and the area, that can make me a tad irrational. I do recognize the difficult situation he is in. To tell the truth to the people could very well cost him his seat. Perhaps his hope is to keep appeasing until he can bring some other industry to the area. Unfortunately, given the harsh reality of poor infrastructure and poor education....I don't think he can do even that. As far as Eastern Ky is concerned, I would advise everyone to leave.
Our culture is unique. Mass relocation will probably destroy it. My own dream is to invest some of my earnings back home to prevent that from happening.
Our people will probably never become well off, but I still hold out hope that we might be able to get by without deracinating.
For how long can coal be the future and at what cost? The price drop of coal may result in other job losses as investment in sustainable systems drops. Additionally, the waste generated in the form of fly ash contains radioactive and carcinogenic materials. Disposal is worse than for nuclear system due to the large volume of material generated and inadequate regulations.
I was trying to address that with my second paragraph.
The question I think is more important is not whether jobs will be good for Appalachia though (obviously they will do some direct good), it is whether the good that comes out of those jobs is at all in proportion with the harm from expanding our use of coal. It likely is not, the harm will be much greater.
I have the same question for you as I have for jacobolus; even if that's the reality, I can still see a political angle to pushing a coal investment, since it was historically a large employer.
A significant amount of coal is burned in the world today. Much of it is burned in an inefficient way. Retrofitting coal burning plants to burn cleaner would a large impact on global carbon emissions. Replacing coal with cleaner sources would also have a large impact.
The important thing is: dollar-for-dollar, retrofitting is more effective than replacing.
I just came out of an energy company job, and you're outta luck. There's nothing in the energy sector to make me think they'll innovate unless they stumble into it.
Now, certain people might be able to sidle into energy but it'll be pretty rough going.
I was simply trying to buck up '80s-'90s era control systems to stop breaking things and this was perceived as "they're takin' 'er jerbs." Nothing was understood. My interpretation is that there is considerable willful ignorance of how technology might be used in that sector that will never be broken. You're threatening people's identity if you do.
Just thorough testing ( at least to my lights what is thorough - I have 30+ years safety-and-life-crticial realtime embedded experience) was seen with a jaundiced eye. A "real oil guy" does it on a laptop on the jobsite.
The rest of your post is spot on. However, at least natural gas will be deadly cheap for the forseeable future. We had one project to try to capture flare gas, but it cost (much) more than the captured gas will ever be worth.
> I just came out of an energy company job, and you're outta luck. There's nothing in the energy sector to make me think they'll innovate unless they stumble into it.
I don't think it only affects the existing members of the energy sector. Given the necessary financial motivation, there is a realistic opportunity for new competition in the renewable energy market rather than only relying on existing stablished companies to shift focus. Even if a group wants to move in to the renewable energy market on principal, funding will be a lot harder to come by with super cheap fossil fuel prices since investors (who are also motivated by money) won't see as much potential for short term profits.
IN the '60s/70, oil companies were mainly just companies that happened to do things oil-related. After the '84 crash, the character of those companies changed dramatically.
I don't know if that's inherent to that market or just a temporary phenomenon. If it is inherent, then that makes for a barrier to entry.
In addition to that, I'm not sure what the benefit is to energy producers - oil prices are already not far above a 15-year low and domestic crude production is at a 25-year high, currently almost 10% of global consumption.
Even without subsidies or other incentives, I just can't see where the demand comes from to drive significant oil supply increases. I'm genuinely curious what the restrictions are that are throttling our energy industry.
That's my guess too, but large numbers of new drilling sites - especially remote ones - would drive up costs while simultaneously helping to keep per-barrel prices low. Just sounds like a terrible ROI to me.
Well, I don't really expect this to cause oil extraction costs to go up. I don't think companies would waste money choosing more expensive drilling sites. But this could also signal an attack on local regulations too. It would make a big difference if local fracking bans were made illegal. Texas did that.
Yeah, I don't see an effect on extraction costs, I was just talking about the significant up-front capex costs in what looks to be a historically slack market.
Very interesting thought regarding local regulations; hadn't considered something like that at a federal level. It does also occur to me that this could just be a convenient way to make the opening up of large amounts of protected lands more palatable to the general public.
America has enough shale oil to be a net energy exporter, which means no more dealing with Venezuela or need for huge defense spending to protect strategic resources across the world. So I dunno, I can see why developing those resources might be in our interest.
Since oil is a fungible commodity, instabilities in oil prices outside the US will cause instabilities and price rises in the US (since a price rise outside the US is simply an incentive to export). Thus the US military patrols the Persian gulf in order that domestic oil makes it to the refinery.
>> which means no more dealing with Venezuela or need for huge defense spending to protect strategic resources across the world.
The problem is that we HAD energy independence when we discovered oil in the Bakken Peninsula and what happened? Our fearless leaders who wanted to be energy independent had a great chance to tell OPEC to go screw themselves and what happened?
They let them go to war with OPEC. We lost jobs, oil companies shut down in droves as the race to the bottom happened. OPEC said it wanted to put them out of business and for the most part, the people in Washington talking big about energy independence let it happen.
I have no faith they will ever keep their word. We had a wonderful opportunity and they let OPEC drive our companies out of business and cost that region thousands of jobs. And in the process, drive up the cost of oil as well.
If you are energy independent then you can screw the international market. If you can server yourself then you do not have to dance by the music of other producers.
Unless of course you want to play some other game altogether.
So you're suggesting the USA should block (or duty) oil imports, so that Americans have to pay a lot more for their oil just so they can prop up the US oil industry?
Would your own answer to this question be different if you had to pay what oil would actually cost with all externalities included, including but not limited to the gargantuan oil-industry subsidy that is the US defense budget?
Sure, but if the people who own the oil can sell it outside the country for more they will. So the price/demand outside still matters. Unless you're planning on making it illegal to export?
Well, that is not to say that states cannot implement their own environmental laws, take for example California. . .the fact that Trump 'will' lift "$50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal. . ." does not mean that the states cannot take action; I know it is perceived as for the better if the environmental laws are uniformed throughout the states, but please let us not forget about state rights, 10th Amendment. If you, or whoever reads this comment, is really concerned about the environment than start focusing on individual and local changes; like in California; become a leader, propagate new technology that is good for the environment, and then the rest will follow the example of progressive states, as well as, progressive individuals. Don't sell your self short; Roll up the sleeves and get to work. . .no need for Federal Government Regulations;
Limit The Federal Government Not The People.
The problem is if West Virginia burns coal that causes air pollution and sea level rise in New York, New York can't pass a law against burning coal in West Virginia. Federal laws are needed when a state is externalizing costs and internalizing profits.
Look we can go back and forward and at the end we are both right. . .example, I can say that we doing something about our environment does not make a difference because of countries like China and India's pollution make it over the pacific into our environment. . .
The mechanism for dealing with this between countries is by signing treaties. The mechanism for dealing with this between US states is by passing federal laws.
> If we don't burn the stuff, the price will go down.
Not if the tax is on removing it from the ground to begin with. And we could issue sanctions on anyone who doesn't impose the same tax in their own country.
If I were a country and another country imposed sanctions on me for not following their exceptional laws, I would take that as a sign of aggression; that is essentially what it is; Instrumental Aggression;
Countries rely on different exportation of resources for their economy, the economy their people live off; stop it with this American Exceptionalism approach; be a leader by example not by aggression.
That is an interesting projection of your attitude. I hate to attribute a negative disposition to your comment, but you sound like an environmental extremist. Environmental extremist whom if given the opportunity would indirectly blow the world up, all in the name of the environment! Keep in mind that you have created this slippery slope, I reference to my initial comment; To give context to my reference (if it is not already obvious), I am for progressive laws for which people will adapt to hence given the choice not the forceful option, like sanctions; I am all for change just do not force it on me, and I you believe that a paternalistic government is needed for a positive change than you have already defined paternalist; paternalism through aggressive actions, like sanctions.
Good day sir
Climate change is classic tragedy of the commons. It's the quintessential example of it.
There are two ways out of tragedy of the commons. The first is that everyone recognizes we're all better off not destroying the world with CO2 and everyone stops burning coal. That works perfectly fine if that's what everyone does.
But if you'll notice the comment I was responding to was arguing that not everybody would. Which is possible. In which case only the second option works, which is for the victims of harm to exert power until the perpetrators submit. And that can lead to war -- which is why everyone should stop burning coal now.
This sort of attempt to control the resource usage of Japan (oil, rubber, etc.) is why Pearl Harbor got attacked. Starting the next world war is probably bad for the environment.
You're leaving out the entire purpose of the blockade: preventing Japan from importing oil and other goods to supply their massive invasion of China and Southeast Asia.
The attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't unprovoked, but failing to do anything would likely have ended up with the U.S. being attacked by a stronger set of allied opponents.
Congress doesn't write federal regulations. Executive branch agencies do, within very broad guidelines that Congress has put in the statutes empowering those agencies. A lot of what Trump is proposing here can be done without any Congressional action at all; it's just a matter of changing the priorities of the agencies who write the regulations.
Of course, doing that is a much, much bigger job than I think Trump realizes.
This is fantastic. That's exactly how it should be. Otherwise over decades you end up with regulations that stifle all forms of entrepreneurship and creativity.
What is a unit of "regulation"? I can pack five thousand onerous rules into one document and eliminate two documents that contain guidance with very minor impact. Is that a net gain?
This document contradicts that every other sentence after that. Almost all the bills he proposes are regulations, the executive orders... regulations. He proposes to overturn about a quarter as many things as he wants made law or executive order.
Agreed - this will probably be the Trump administration action that has the worst long-term impact of all. The US might as well not bother turning up to the next global climate change summit (not that Trump will anyway). Unfortunately, though, the whole world will pay the price of increased US environmental contamination during this era.
That and
>FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions
where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people
coming into our country will be considered “extreme
vetting.”
are the 2 most scary things on that first page. I really like his limitations on lobbying though. I hope they aren't too ham-fisted and easy to get around.
Wouldn't those lobbying regulations (blocking federal employees from lobbying) violate the first amendment? Wouldn't that deny an entire political class of people from being able to participate in the political process?
Except under Citizens United money is speech. How is this supposed to not conflict with that decision, unless they mean to clarify Citizens United is that only corporate personhood can use money as speech?
obviously I am not a supreme court justice, but its not limiting speech or expression. It is explicitly preventing what many people consider to be a gross conflict of interest. It's post-fact in a way, but its still messed up.
Agreed, this is the definition of short-sightedness. And the difficult part is that it's likely to produce a significant (short-term) boost to the economy.
Subsequent generations will have to pay back the principal on this loan, with interest. And we will lose our opportunity to carve out a leadership position in the energy technologies of the 21st century, as well.
> Cheaper fossil fuels == less investment in renewable energy. Period.
Does it have to be US investment? Some other countries (China, Israel, South Korea) have a greater urgency to diversify into clean energy. Why can't the US ride the coattails of that research the way other countries benefit from cheap solar panels and affordable electric cars developed and produced elsewhere?
But these are global problems, and if the US unilaterally refuses to make money off of oil while the rest of the world keeps pumping, the biggest effect will be income and jobs leaving the country.
I am not sure that makes sense. We dont have to hurt the oil industry to help innovation. We dont have to hurt ordinary cars to help self driving cars popular.
how do we know that "clean energy" hasn't been artificially propped up to begin with? if we can burn coal much cleaner and more efficiently then so what? let's do it if it's cheaper. We can still develop new technologies, that won't stop regardless.
This is what I have the biggest problem with. The ONLY WAY we are going to continue making progress towards widespread clean renewable energy is if it is financially beneficial for corporations to continue investing in R&D. Sure, there are some outliers that will stick with it on principal, but the majority will go where the money is. Cheaper fossil fuels == less investment in renewable energy. Period. This is bad timing given the critical point we are at (so far as we know) regarding climate change.
This is pure short-sightedness motivated by the desire to deliver on his promise of creating jobs.