|
Scam Likely posted:The West Virginia Coal Association isn't too happy about it. Who cares. Those that perpetuate the destruction of the earth for profits would hate anything that passed that doesn’t give them unrestricted access to bleed money from a stone. Do not judge the quality of an action merely by how opponents to it react.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:It's not perfect but a pretty big loving deal, Yep! Low-income households would only have to pay 70% of the cost of installing rooftop solar panels (they'd have to pay 100% up front but then they get a tax credit). That's a Big loving Deal. The mandated oil and gas drilling on federal land isn't ideal, but I'm tired of the doomers who insist everything has to be perfect. This is really *the* ideal bill to pass, in terms of what can actually be done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
My biggest gripe about about the bill is that Sunrise Movement (or other left leaning groups) thought they could have pressured Joe Manchin for something better and killed the first iteration think they could have got something better. But eh, life is life. I'll take this win. It's not like we can't get another bill in in the future to cover things like Power Grid expansion or get rid of the stupid carried interest tax loophole later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
to use a baseball metaphor, its getting on base. only first base tho.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Scam Likely posted:I'm seeing a lot of op-eds and vague breakdowns, but is there a thorough analysis of what this bill does anywhere? Plus gently caress that climate denier guy, why give his opinions any more oxygen? Here are a couple of analyses from the Rhodium Group and from Energy Innovation. https://rhg.com/research/inflation-reduction-act/ https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Modeling-the-Inflation-Reduction-Act-with-the-US-Energy-Policy-Simulator_August.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 02:20
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:to use a baseball metaphor, its getting on base. only first base tho.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
The bought-and-sold gerontocracy that resides within the Legislative branch will pat themselves on the back for a "job well done" about climate change before passing the torch to ~the next generation~, by tossing it into a methane-filled room as they shuffle loose the mortal coil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 03:34
|
|
|
tbf, a 100% methane room doesnt have oxygen for a boom. you need a proper fuel air mix.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The bought-and-sold gerontocracy that resides within the Legislative branch will pat themselves on the back for a "job well done" about climate change before passing the torch to ~the next generation~, by tossing it into a methane-filled room as they shuffle loose the mortal coil. Nah thats too ethical, the methane is a more potent greenhouse gas then the CO2 and water vapor that produces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I see the IRA thing mentioned on Twitter and who do I find? -Blackadder- posted:^^ this is a different guy I mean he's horrible, but he's not the guy
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 11:48
|
|
|
There are two Bjorn Lomborgs, professional climate deniers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 12:21
|
|
|
How are u posted:Here are a couple of analyses from the Rhodium Group and from Energy Innovation. Rhodium Group posted:In the high emissions case, which features cheap fossil fuels and more expensive clean technologies plus faster economic growth, we find that the IRA can accelerate emissions reductions to a 31% cut below 2005 levels in 2030, compared to 24% under current policy (Figure 2). On the flip side, in the low emissions case, with expensive fossil fuels and cheap clean technologies, the IRA can drive even larger reductions, from 35% below 2005 levels under current policy to 44% below 2005 levels with the bill. In the central emissions case, the bill accelerates emissions reductions to 40% below 2005 levels in 2030, compared to 30% under current policy. So it looks like the IRA will be a 7-10% reduction in emissions compared to business as usual? E: Thinking about it more, 7-10% reduction from 2005 baseline isn't much but a ~30% relative change between before and after is more significant. meowmeowmeowmeow fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Aug 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
if there was some kind of assurance I'm not understanding where any assurance comes from in this bill so far
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:if there was some kind of assurance What do you mean by assurance, and what would that look like to you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
How are u posted:What do you mean by assurance, and what would that look like to you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Accountability that it actually will happen, I would guess. What would that look like to you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
I'll go ahead and try to answer my own question. Assurances, to me, would have been what was in the original Build Back Better Act legislation, which, in addition to the bounty of 'carrots' like massive tax breaks and billions upon billions of funding for clean energy transitions and power generation, included 'sticks' in the form of timeline requirements and emissions goals that had to be met in order to qualify on an ongoing basis. Those 'sticks' were agreed upon by every Democrat except for Joe Manchin, who stripped them out and, obviously, didn't include them in this final version of the bill that he basically wrote over the last few weeks. So, that's the consequence of having a 50-50 Senate. The good news is that the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of Democrats wanted 'sticks'. I think it's very easy to envision follow-up legislation coming in the next few years that adds 'sticks', assuming we can maintain control of the government, retain our democracy, and vote in some better Senators.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'll go ahead and try to answer my own question. Assurances, to me, would have been what was in the original Build Back Better Act legislation, which, in addition to the bounty of 'carrots' like massive tax breaks and billions upon billions of funding for clean energy transitions and power generation, included 'sticks' in the form of timeline requirements and emissions goals that had to be met in order to qualify on an ongoing basis. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use the word "stick" so much since Lady Gaga released "LoveGame."
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Look up the definition of regulatory capture and the United States will be pictured.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Here’s an interesting read: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/08/would-there-be-climate-change-under-socialism It’s obviously mostly a hot take provocation but the argument is that climate change would have been worse if socialism had won the 20th century, but that we would be able to fix it much more quickly (the author self-identifies as a socialist)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
smug n stuff posted:Here’s an interesting read: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/08/would-there-be-climate-change-under-socialism People would certainly be doing a lot less traveling, but the problem with their theory is that everything about China and the Soviet Union in the last century is that they were most concerned with how to get things built/done, not how to get them built/done cleanly and efficiently. I mean, look at Norilsk, for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
smug n stuff posted:Here’s an interesting read: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/08/would-there-be-climate-change-under-socialism It is true that there are numerous nearly catastrophic environmental disasters that have occurred in the Soviet Union and China - Aral Sea for example. Or things that pre-date capitalism like Easter Island. That said, I think it's a stretch to say that climate change would have been worse under climate change. We're dealing with a massive system with an insane amount of variables. Would we stayed under 1.5/2C if Al Gore had won the 2000 election? What if politicians took the Charney report seriously in the 1970s? I'm not sure what to think. In my view, it's a bigger indictment of humanity than capitalism but it's easier to blame greedy corporations than ourselves. Edit - I can't see a circumstance where humanity doesn't emit something. Coal but especially oil is an astonishing useful resource. And I hope we find alternatives sooner than later. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Aug 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
Throw another one on the pile of "poo poo is happening much faster than models predicted" https://twitter.com/xr_cambridge/status/1557482944708714499 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05093-2
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
smug n stuff posted:Here’s an interesting read: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/08/would-there-be-climate-change-under-socialism I don't really think there's much to this article other than a counterfactual that can be proved or disproved. I'd like to think that there'd have been less barriers to climate change action under world communism in the 90s, but that ship has long since sailed and it sort of feels like I'm just assuming the best when the reality might not have been so clean. Like the Soviet Union had awful emissions IRL, would they and everybody else been able to resist the lure of cheap, easily accessible energy when it came right down to it? Also the very premise that Climate Change would have been worse initially feels like a self defeating argument. If it was the case that worldwide industrialization was much further along during the 20th century under socialism than in reality, that world probably just cancel out any later action that the author talks about since it was harder to get an industrial economy going for most of the 20th century when renewable and nuclear technology was far less advanced and fossil fuels were head and shoulders above everything else in terms of cost, abundance, and ease of use. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Aug 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Throw another one on the pile of "poo poo is happening much faster than models predicted" Lol 20 years from now will be a Mad Max-like hellscape
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Doing a Lex Luthor and buying up prime Arctic tundra real estate
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
Vitamin Me posted:Lol 20 years from now will be a Mad Max-like hellscape Reading about the FBI attack this morning had me thinking about when we reach the point where: ...nothing could stem the avalanche
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Vitamin Me posted:Lol 20 years from now will be a Mad Max-like hellscape Since this is more of a fact-based climate change discussion thread rather than whatever that other thread is, could you provide some evidence that we'll be living in a "Mad Max-like hellscape" 20 years from now? Or define what you mean by that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
How are u posted:Since this is more of a fact-based climate change discussion thread rather than whatever that other thread is, could you provide some evidence that we'll be living in a "Mad Max-like hellscape" 20 years from now? Or define what you mean by that? We have been shown over and over again that scientists' models of the effects of climate change have grossly underestimated the magnitude of those changes. You'd be a fool to assume that truly catastrophic effects are decades away
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
How are u posted:Since this is more of a fact-based climate change discussion thread rather than whatever that other thread is, could you provide some evidence that we'll be living in a "Mad Max-like hellscape" 20 years from now? Or define what you mean by that? I stick to the other thread, but I'll give this one a shot. Basically, if you look at the last 20 years of scientist reports, every time we get a new report we're already where 20 years ago they'd assume we'd be in the 2080's to 2100's. Combine that with the fact that most people think the solutions are simple like "more solar panels and electric cars"! without actually willing to changing lifestyles (aka less cars not flying all over the world for gram photos) indicates as individuals, we have no desire to change our habits unless forced to. Now, individuals aren't to blame for what companies/governments are doing, but the reality is, with every year getting hotter than the year before, new diseases spreading arguably caused by climate change and only increasing in number, the chances of things cooling down and or calming down seem incredibly unrealistic. Food/water wars are 100% on the horizon in other locations in the next 20 years. The chances the USA doesn't fall into a full scale christian fascist theocracy seem slimmer and slimmer as well, and that will only speed up climate change. That all being said, mad max- is a very vague term but the gist of what the poster is stating (things will be much worse, we'll be fighting over resources that today seem common place) I think is something that most posters who live for the next 20-30 years we very much will see. Now will it make it's way all the way to say the USA in such a short relative timespan? Unknown, but I wouldn't bet against it. The reality is, if you look at how the world is remotely versus how you would want to look at the world, there's no way that a rational individual doesn't see that overall climate change will make things significantly worse for a large percentage of the population, even if we as privileged people may not instantly be directly effected. Will it be mad max in California or New York City? I don't know. But in other places of the world in the next 20 years. 100%. Not to be combative, but when people in this thread push back against those who have a dimmer view of how things are turning, I'd like to see evidence indicating things won't get significantly worse, in a manner that is not directly tied to/cheerleading basic capitalism talking points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
How are u posted:Since this is more of a fact-based climate change discussion thread rather than whatever that other thread is, could you provide some evidence that we'll be living in a "Mad Max-like hellscape" 20 years from now? Or define what you mean by that? Somewhat related but with all the climate models and impact reports showing what resources we can expect to lose and when that is likely to happen, has there been a lot of the obvious follow up modeling of "how populations/society will adapt/breakdown" as a result of the aforementioned climate models/impact reports? IOW projections that follow the thread beyond "this thing we all rely on will be drastically reduced/gone by this point" to "and this is how people/the market economy/government are likely to attempt to adapt." And by that I mean projections that are more detailed than "things tend to get bad/wars start when people don't have this thing." For example they're basically entering a water crisis in several western states currently, what kind of predictions are there for what happens after that? -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Aug 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yep! Low-income households would only have to pay 70% of the cost of installing rooftop solar panels (they'd have to pay 100% up front but then they get a tax credit). That's a Big loving Deal. The mandated oil and gas drilling on federal land isn't ideal, but I'm tired of the doomers who insist everything has to be perfect. This is really *the* ideal bill to pass, in terms of what can actually be done. Low income households aren’t in a position to buy those things anyway, even with the de facto price reductions. The package is mainly a bunch of individual consumer incentives. It won’t do anything meaningful. It also requires more fossil fuel land leasing before wind land leasing. It’s really bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yep! Low-income households would only have to pay 70% of the cost of installing rooftop solar panels (they'd have to pay 100% up front but then they get a tax credit). That's a Big loving Deal. This part here is really, absolutely hilarious. Low income households only have to pay 70% of an expensive thing after they’ve mailed in a rebate?! Lmao! That someone posted that when inflation has skyrocketed over the past year and most people live paycheck to paycheck and have no savings
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:This part here is really, absolutely hilarious. Low income households only have to pay 70% of an expensive thing after they’ve mailed in a rebate?! Lmao! Don’t worry, there will be plenty of predatory lending companies offering them Free Money up front. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-04-06/the-subprime-solar-trap-for-low-income-homeowners
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:Low income households aren’t in a position to buy those things anyway, even with the de facto price reductions. Consumer incentives are a relatively small part of the package. Industrial (solar, wind, nuclear, EV manufacturing, etc) incentives are a much, much, much larger component. The bill does require that O&G lease sales be held before permits for green energy projects can be given. It does not, however, mandate that those leases be *sold* or that wells must be *drilled*, just that sales must be held. It is a compromise bill, but we, people who want to see progress on climate, are the unambiguous winners overall. We will continue to fight against the compromises, while the vast majority of the investments will send our clean energy industry into overdrive over the next decade. If somebody is telling you the bill is a compromise with some bad aspects, they're right. If somebody is telling you that the bill is all bad, will do nothing, etc, they're ignorant or lying. There are a ton of organizations out there that have broken down the pros and cons of this bill, enough so that you don't have to just take the word of "some guy on a dead comedy forum who believes the world will be a mad max hellscape in 20 years" at face value. Link roundup: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03082022/climate-legislation-incentives-renewables-manchin/ https://www.vox.com/2022/8/7/23295645/inflation-reduction-act-impact https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/07/manchin-schumer-inflation-reduction-climate/670981/ https://climatepower.us/resources/fact-sheet-the-senate-has-reached-a-historic-climate-deal/ https://www.evergreenaction.com/blog/evergreen-explains-the-climate-impact-of-the-inflation-reduction-act https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/inflation-reduction-act https://aflcio.org/2022/8/1/8-ways-inflation-reduction-act-helps-working-people https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/site/9-million-good-jobs-from-climate-action-the-inflation-reduction-act/ https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...3m1tb2pIaVgF9cD https://www.rff.org/publications/issue-briefs/retail-electricity-rates-under-the-inflation-reduction-act-of-2022/ https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1552414354288656384?s=20&t=yTsAX5pLQx3b1h1EcP6lEg Climate modeling analysis: https://rhg.com/research/inflation-reduction-act/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...fb6ftA8BBzdlz75 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url...KT-ByA,,&typo=1 How are u fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Aug 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
Thanks for taking a stab at it, and for what it's worth I pretty much agree with you on most of it. Amazing, the difference between putting effort into a post vs "lol we're doomed" drive-by poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
How are u posted:Thanks for taking a stab at it, and for what it's worth I pretty much agree with you on most of it. Amazing, the difference between putting effort into a post vs "lol we're doomed" drive-by poo poo. I don’t see it as a “lol we’re doomed” drive-by post. I see it as a commentary on a huge ecological shift that is stunning scientists. In fact, I see it as quite a sensible sentiment given the information we have and actions we see. I’m not an expert on any of this, but I’ve seen many of the reports that are basically “poo poo is happening faster than we thought” for a while now. So I’m left thinking if this bill is enough. By the studies and poo poo, the IRA will only get us (the US) about 70% of meeting the Paris Accords with some other things in the pipeline that can get us even further along. Of course, that’s if other things don’t happen like republicans taking over and doing away with all the good poo poo or just simply giving away more federal land for oil drilling. But given that things are deteriorating faster than we thought, would the Paris Accords even keep us from climate catastrophe? I know it would still help, of course, but would it be enough? Legit question and would like to know
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
How are u posted:Thanks for taking a stab at it, and for what it's worth I pretty much agree with you on most of it. Amazing, the difference between putting effort into a post vs "lol we're doomed" drive-by poo poo. In your mind “putting effort” is just grabbing a bunch of hits off Google to bloat the bibliography. It’s a bullshit tactic undergrads use to make their paper look more robust. Like are we seriously using sources like the Atlantic as a barometer of neutral analysis? The best case scenarios presented in these biased analyses are ridiculous. Shell and other fossil fuel companies are celebrating the IRA. What does that tell you? There is for sure a possibility that some of the items in this are good, and there maybe even be a lot of good, but there is also a lot of stuff that is actively making things worse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 01:16
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:In your mind “putting effort” is just grabbing a bunch of hits off Google to bloat the bibliography. It’s a bullshit tactic undergrads use to make their paper look more robust. Do you want to engage with what the sources say at all, or just dismiss them out of hand like this? quote:Like are we seriously using sources like the Atlantic as a barometer of neutral analysis? Apologies if you don't like the Atlantic. Please feel free to check out one of the other 9 articles I linked or the 3 analyses. quote:The best case scenarios presented in these biased analyses are ridiculous. Citation? Every analysis is biased? They all end up concluding pretty much the same results, which is a range of possible outcomes. A range of outcomes includes best case and worst case scenarios, you know. quote:Shell and other fossil fuel companies are celebrating the IRA. What does that tell you? Citation? I'm googling and trying to find Shell and other fossil fuel companies celebrating the passage, would appreciate links if you have them. quote:There is for sure a possibility that some of the items in this are good, and there maybe even be a lot of good, but there is also a lot of stuff that is actively making things worse. Thank you. There is a lot of good, and there are bad things that were part of the compromise. The good vastly outweighs the bad, according to virtually every climate group, climate scientists, the UN, etc etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
how r u, the main disconnect between you and other posters in this thread is that you approach legislation like this under the mindset of "any progress is progress, and incremental efforts can compound on themselves" while many others tend to view these acts as "if things dont meet a certain threshold, our civilization is irrevocably hosed" and conclude these acts fall far short of that threshold
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2022 01:51
|
|