USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »

Sub Par: Jul 18, 2001; Dinosaur Gum

Kalit posted:

My doomerism is because when it comes to human invention, including all of the items you listed, it always prioritizes convenience over everything, especially environmental impact. Now hey, maybe we�re finally focusing on the environment enough. But that�s not a bet I�d be willing to make.

On top of that, IRL I mostly hear about lab grown meat from people who resist eating less meat*. Which I feel like is a deflection mechanism in those people. So I�m admittedly biased in that regard

*This is absolutely not directed at you, as you already clearly stated you are veg

No doubt, that all makes sense. But I think lab cultured meats will also prove more convenient/useful than livestock eventually. And certainly more economical once the water wars ~~start~~ worsen.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 14:37

BRJurgis: Aug 15, 2007; Well I hear the thunder roll, I feel the cold winds blowing...
But you won't find me there, 'cause I won't go back again...
While you're on smoky roads, I'll be out in the sun...
Where the trees still grow, where they count by one...

It seems that just on paper our solutions to climate change are largely half measures to take place over the next few decades. By the time it comes to actual implementation and response they are quarter measures IF they are even seen through rather than rolled backed due to a different administration or market straining event.

Nobody can predict the future with certainty, but is a reaction of "We can't/won't do this to a level that approaches a real solution" that baffling? It will never be more profitable to reduce extraction consumption and waste rather than relentlessly capitalizing on it. Seems to me even with unprecedented innovation in green technology we would simply feel better about our unsustainable ways, if not somehow expand back into the slim space we'd carved out.

Not to mention whatever solutions we'll desperately grasp for in times of increasing instability would be more difficult to implement. If we won't/can't do it now, why be hopeful we'll be able to when it's more difficult or even demonstratably too late.

Not demanding everybody agrees with this assessment to the word. I'm just a bit taken aback by the "how could you be such a doomer?" statements. Rather than focus on our "progress", consider our motivations and trajectory.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:36

Sax Mortar: Aug 24, 2004

NPR is quitting Twitter because Musk is musking all over the place:

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1646138100035272704

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/12/1169269161/npr-leaves-twitter-government-funded-media-label

Things continue to go swimmingly over there.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:41

Lumpy: Apr 26, 2002; La! La! La! Laaaa!; College Slice

Kalit posted:

My doomerism is because when it comes to human invention, including all of the items you listed, it always prioritizes convenience over everything, especially environmental impact. Now hey, maybe we�re finally focusing on the environment enough. But that�s not a bet I�d be willing to make.

This. What percentage of people who claim to care about global warming still eat meat? If everyone changed their behavior, we'd solve the problem in no time, but people are unwilling or unable (it'd be nice to work walking distance from work, but lol at affording it!) to do so, so solutions have to come from policies that force action at the system level. [ insert doomerism about that happening in time here ]

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:43

Oxyclean: Sep 23, 2007

Probably seen as a W by Musk, sadly.

Shame there probably anyone with the guts (or job security) to tag Tesla and SpaceX with "government funded"

Lumpy posted:

This. What percentage of people who claim to care about global warming still eat meat? If everyone changed their behavior, we'd solve the problem in no time, but people are unwilling or unable (it'd be nice to work walking distance from work, but lol at affording it!) to do so, so solutions have to come from policies that force action at the system level. [ insert doomerism about that happening in time here ]

A mixture of selfishness and cynicism makes me feel like giving up meat (or eating meaningfully less) would translate into me getting less enjoyment for no other tangible benefit because whatever slack in environmental benefits I create would be picked up by big corporations. Like I wouldn't entirely see why "eat less meat" would be meaningfully different then similar personal responsibility green initiatives like "remember to turn off the lights when you leave a room" and "consider switching to a low flow toilet!"

Oxyclean fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Apr 12, 2023

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:44

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

NPR loving sucks anyway

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:44

Sax Mortar: Aug 24, 2004

Failed Imagineer posted:

NPR loving sucks anyway

That's fine. But now the ice has been broken a bit, since they're the first major news org to officially quit because of the newly rolled out (and very ill thought out) policies.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:46

Dull Fork: Mar 22, 2009

Failed Imagineer posted:

NPR loving sucks anyway

So to you, what news outlets don't 'loving suck'? I'm always looking for more viewpoints.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:52

Oxyclean: Sep 23, 2007

Sax Mortar posted:

That's fine. But now the ice has been broken a bit, since they're the first major news org to officially quit because of the newly rolled out (and very ill thought out) policies.

Yeah, a conservatives politician up here in Canada is already asking Musk to hit the CBC with the tag too.

The CBC is often a disappointment, but it's still a mile better then the conglomerate of right-wing owned media.

e: Where's the "Rupert Murdock owned Media" Tag???

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:53

NomNomNom: Jul 20, 2008; Please Work Out

Lumpy posted:

This. What percentage of people who claim to care about global warming still eat meat? If everyone changed their behavior, we'd solve the problem in no time, but people are unwilling or unable (it'd be nice to work walking distance from work, but lol at affording it!) to do so, so solutions have to come from policies that force action at the system level. [ insert doomerism about that happening in time here ]

Give up air conditioning. Personal choice that won't cost you anything. Do you even care about the environment?

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:53

Oxyclean: Sep 23, 2007

NomNomNom posted:

Give up air conditioning. Personal choice that won't cost you anything. Do you even care about the environment?

That is legitimately a lot bigger of an ask then trying to get people to give up meat.

Just about noone is going to die from giving up meat. There is a fair about of circumstances where no air conditioning could be deadly during a heatwave.

Although just like plant based proteins, there does seem to be improvements to technology that make for more efficient heating/cooling solutions.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 17:58

the_steve: Nov 9, 2005; We're always hiring!

Oxyclean posted:

A mixture of selfishness and cynicism makes me feel like giving up meat (or eating meaningfully less) would translate into me getting less enjoyment for no other tangible benefit because whatever slack in environmental benefits I create would be picked up by big corporations. Like I wouldn't entirely see why "eat less meat" would be meaningfully different then similar personal responsibility green initiatives like "remember to turn off the lights when you leave a room" and "consider switching to a low flow toilet!"

Pretty sure it's been proven that even if all of us (see: Regular people, the average Joe, etc) went all in on that; installed solar panels, recycled as much as possible, rode our bikes to work, it would still be dwarfed by the carbon footprint that massive corporations are making. Basically pissing on a forest fire.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:00

Velocity Raptor: Jul 27, 2007; I MADE A PROMISE
I'LL DO ANYTHING

the_steve posted:

Pretty sure it's been proven that even if all of us (see: Regular people, the average Joe, etc) went all in on that; installed solar panels, recycled as much as possible, rode our bikes to work, it would still be dwarfed by the carbon footprint that massive corporations are making. Basically pissing on a forest fire.

Pretty much this. The biggest step towards improving our environment, including reducing our carbon emissions and reducing the amount of water being used, is passing regulations for corporations forcing them to reduce.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:05

Angry_Ed: Mar 30, 2010; Grimey Drawer

Yeah the problem is not "everyone needs to sacrifice luxury" it's once again corporations (and the rich fuckers influencing governments) that need to be sacrificing but refuse to.

Also a reminder that Exxon-Mobil has literally committed crimes against nature and humanity for covering up the effects of global warming for decades.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:05

bird food bathtub: Aug 9, 2003; College Slice

the_steve posted:

Pretty sure it's been proven that even if all of us (see: Regular people, the average Joe, etc) went all in on that; installed solar panels, recycled as much as possible, rode our bikes to work, it would still be dwarfed by the carbon footprint that massive corporations are making. Basically pissing on a forest fire.

There's also market realities of our system of resource exploitation. If you got a magic wand to wave that did something that would require absolute magic like making half of the population of the United States do everything required to live a life style with absolutely zero dependency on fossil fuels, the economic system we have and all the infrastructure that has been built up since we first started burning dead dinosaurs wouldn't go away. You would just be cutting the demand in half. Now suddenly the remaining half of the country gets to go "Oh cool gas is a dollar a gallon. I'll take that extra trip across country I wanted to go on since it'll be super cheap!"

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:10

Sub Par: Jul 18, 2001; Dinosaur Gum

Lumpy posted:

This. What percentage of people who claim to care about global warming still eat meat? If everyone changed their behavior, we'd solve the problem in no time, but people are unwilling or unable (it'd be nice to work walking distance from work, but lol at affording it!) to do so, so solutions have to come from policies that force action at the system level. [ insert doomerism about that happening in time here ]

To be clear, I do not think lab cultured meat will become a thing because people want to reduce their carbon emissions. I think there is a large profit motive to develop consistent, low-cost, high-quality meat and that consumer behavior will follow not drive its development.

Most people do not drive Teslas to reduce their carbon footprint. And yet, the electric car market is booming. How do you reconcile these facts? It's easy: behavior is subject to a whole lot of intersecting motives and interests. It's pretty uncreative to say "nobody cares about the environment -> diets will never change".

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:11

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

Its also not really an issue of lack of innovation or good ol fashioned gumption. We already have solutions to a lot of our problems, and we can deploy them at scale. We already have efficient, nutritional, and tasty alternatives to meat. We already have clean, cheap, and convenient transportation alternatives to personal cars. We dont need to invent anything new. The problem is that meat, car, and fossil fuel (and many other) industries have so much entrenched institutional power that they can basically convince everyone, through lobbying and advertising, that the alternatives are worse.

Why dont we have a high speed rail network? It sure isnt because we havent invented something that can do that.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:18

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

Dull Fork posted:

So to you, what news outlets don't 'loving suck'? I'm always looking for more viewpoints.

The Intercept is good, if you aren't Reality Winner.

It's more about knowing the relative biases and specialities of the different outlets:

The Guardian is Labour melt poo poo with a big transphobic streak but the current events are often factual.
The BBC is dogshit domestically but decent internationally.
Most all of the US MSM are dogshit domestically AND internationally.
Al-Jazeera has gone to poo poo in recent years.
Euronews is OK for Euro stuff.
Financial Times and WSJ are pro-money plutocrats but often give decent coverage of economic issues.

All op-eds everywhere are putrid and should be banned.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:25

Lumpy: Apr 26, 2002; La! La! La! Laaaa!; College Slice

NomNomNom posted:

Give up air conditioning. Personal choice that won't cost you anything.

Done!

NomNomNom posted:

Do you even care about the environment?

I try to

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:25

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Gyges posted:

All livestock rearing is an the inefficient process where we

spend a bunch of resources to raise a bunch of perfectly good plants

stuff all those plants into an animal who then wastes a bunch of plant energy by living and not being eaten for a few years

dumping a bunch more water into the animal

throwing out 40% or so of the end result animal because it isn't meat

It's going to be rather hard to find a plant that is less resource intensive than whatever dumb herbivore we're eating. Omnivore livestock are even worse since they're sometimes eating something that ate something else first.

Not all livestock rearing is an inefficient process, or we never would have started doing it. Livestock rearing can actually be done quite efficiently, but modern factory farming is about maximizing outcome - and less efficiency for more total production is the trade-off pretty much all of the industry makes every time the opportunity comes up.

lil poopendorfer posted:

It�ll be insect-based protein, actually. Cultured meat simply isn�t viable at scale. Producing a small sample of meat to drum up venture funding is a far cry from producing it at scale.

I've literally never gotten the point of insect based protein. It has literally none of the appeal of eating meat while being less efficient than eating plants. It seems to occupy a dietary and economic deadzone that leaves no one happy.

Kalit posted:

My doomerism is because when it comes to human invention, including all of the items you listed, it always prioritizes convenience over everything, especially environmental impact.

But that's exactly why cultured meat is likely to take off. It actually is more convenient, in addition to being potentially much more profitable. The environmental benefits are wonderful and will get it some R&D money, but it's not why its being pursued - its being pursued because it potentially gives customers what they want in a way that's far more profitable than traditional factory farming.

Lumpy posted:

This. What percentage of people who claim to care about global warming still eat meat? If everyone changed their behavior, we'd solve the problem in no time, but people are unwilling or unable (it'd be nice to work walking distance from work, but lol at affording it!) to do so, so solutions have to come from policies that force action at the system level. [ insert doomerism about that happening in time here ]

Arguing people should "change their behaviour" doesn't work when you have a solid block of people that will never change their behaviour - collective action requires either large-scale solidarity, or the use of force. A situation where if everyone who agrees with you did everything you wanted at massive personal cost and the only outcome is things continue to get worse at half the speed is not a convincing one.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:27

Lumpy: Apr 26, 2002; La! La! La! Laaaa!; College Slice

GlyphGryph posted:

Arguing people should "change their behaviour" doesn't work when you have a solid block of people that will never change their behaviour - collective action requires either large-scale solidarity, or the use of force. A situation where if everyone who agrees with you did everything you wanted at massive personal cost and the only outcome is things continue to get worse at half the speed is not a convincing one.

I didn't argue that people should change their behavior. IF they did, it would be great. But they won't for a variety of reasons, so we cannot rely on that to get good outcomes.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:31

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

VideoGameVet posted:

Worst train route ever.

Incremental improvements on the Coast Starlight route would have been cheaper and actually useful.

What in the world are you talking about.

What incremental improvements and why is an 11hr route that goes near zero population centers a better idea than a much faster one that actually stops at cities?

People are real silly about rail projects.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:35

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Failed Imagineer posted:

The Intercept is good, if you aren't Reality Winner.

It's more about knowing the relative biases and specialities of the different outlets:

The Guardian is Labour melt poo poo with a big transphobic streak but the current events are often factual.
The BBC is dogshit domestically but decent internationally.
Most all of the US MSM are dogshit domestically AND internationally.
Al-Jazeera has gone to poo poo in recent years.
Euronews is OK for Euro stuff.
Financial Times and WSJ are pro-money plutocrats but often give decent coverage of economic issues.

All op-eds everywhere are putrid and should be banned.

stat news seems good on science/medicine. Ars for tech.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:36

Oxyclean: Sep 23, 2007

Fister Roboto posted:

Its also not really an issue of lack of innovation or good ol fashioned gumption. We already have solutions to a lot of our problems, and we can deploy them at scale. We already have efficient, nutritional, and tasty alternatives to meat. We already have clean, cheap, and convenient transportation alternatives to personal cars. We dont need to invent anything new. The problem is that meat, car, and fossil fuel (and many other) industries have so much entrenched institutional power that they can basically convince everyone, through lobbying and advertising, that the alternatives are worse.

Why dont we have a high speed rail network? It sure isnt because we havent invented something that can do that.

Entranced industries is absolutely the biggest hurdle, but even if they were gone tomorrow, there would be a lot of inertia to overcome. Like so much of america is built in a way that makes good public transit challenging to implement even if the will was there. Enough people live in low density areas or work jobs that alternatives to cars are non-starters.

It's definitely not something that we can't fix or work to improve, it's just something we sadly need to have started yesterday.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Although I've previously endorsed it, STAT News varies wildly because it in part relies on access models for things like drug development issues, which has introduced capture problems. This has come to a head during Covid.

"US MSM" is not a useful way of evaluating sources of information.

There's a media analysis thread with some useful material on evaluating sources of information- I'm going to try to get it going again now that some of the trolls who've been sabotaging it are less active.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Apr 12, 2023

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:41

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

Discendo Vox posted:

"US MSM" is not a useful way of evaluating sources of information.

Gimme a break lol.

Feel free to post any MSM outlets in the US that aren't actively harmful to media literacy. You know exactly what I mean it isn't an abstruse definition.

Fake edit: yeah yeah C-SPAN is fine if you want to go that way

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Opposition to an ill-defined "mainstream media" is effectively pre-selecting for information one finds favorable to their prior beliefs, which in turn just makes you more vulnerable to disinformation. It's the coin in trade of motivated reasoning.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:51

A GIANT PARSNIP: Apr 13, 2010; Too much fuckin' eggnog

One of the best things industry did to boost their profits was to convince the public that environmental issues can be solved at the consumer level. No amount of recycling yogurt cups (which�ll get thrown out by the recycler anyway) and adjusting the thermostat is going to offset industry pollution. No amount of turning off the faucet while brushing your teeth will offset growing crops like almonds and alfalfa in a drought zone.

Environmental change can only happen through banning activities or through large scale economic intervention (taxing �bad� activities and/or subsidizing �good� ones).

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:56

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Failed Imagineer posted:

Gimme a break lol.

Feel free to post any MSM outlets in the US that aren't actively harmful to media literacy. You know exactly what I mean it isn't an abstruse definition.

Fake edit: yeah yeah C-SPAN is fine if you want to go that way

If you are media literate and can rub 2 brain cells you can still glean plenty of useful information from US MSM, but you have to be able to dig through the framing. Media literacy is not the ability to know which sources are "good" or "bad" but the ability to read media critically.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:56

Dull Fork: Mar 22, 2009

Failed Imagineer posted:

Gimme a break lol.

Feel free to post any MSM outlets in the US that aren't actively harmful to media literacy. You know exactly what I mean it isn't an abstruse definition.

Fake edit: yeah yeah C-SPAN is fine if you want to go that way

How about shows in the past like Jon Stewart's Daily show? Or today's Last Week Tonight? 60 Minutes? Or do those not count because they're individual programs?

Does MSM Outlet ostensibly mean only the 24 Hour News networks? If so yeah, you're probably right, not great options there.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:57

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

Professor Beetus posted:

If you are media literate and can rub 2 brain cells you can still glean plenty of useful information from US MSM, but you have to be able to dig through the framing. Media literacy is not the ability to know which sources are "good" or "bad" but the ability to read media critically.

Why would they suggest any of those news orgs where you need to dig through the framing when the original question was about which ones they recommend where you don't need to do that?

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:58

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

Professor Beetus posted:

If you are media literate and can rub 2 brain cells you can still glean plenty of useful information from US MSM, but you have to be able to dig through the framing. Media literacy is not the ability to know which sources are "good" or "bad" but the ability to read media critically.

I mean that was literally my exact post about media sources, it's just that US MSM sources generally aren't worth the effort due to low signal:noise ratio

# ? Apr 12, 2023 18:58

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

Which orgs with what caveats would people suggest to the original question from US media? Seems more useful than just being mad someone said mainstream US media is bad.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 19:00

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Which orgs with what caveats would people suggest to the original question from US media? Seems more useful than just being mad someone said mainstream US media is bad.

I don't think people are mad, they're just pointing it's a point so lazy as to be effectively meaningless.

"US Media bad" is both trivially true and like baby's first media criticism.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 19:08

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

Jaxyon posted:

I don't think people are mad, they're just pointing it's a point so lazy as to be effectively meaningless.

"US Media bad" is both trivially true and like baby's first media criticism.

actual suggestions for the original question would still be more useful.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 19:09

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Gumball Gumption posted:

Which orgs with what caveats would people suggest to the original question from US media? Seems more useful than just being mad someone said mainstream US media is bad.

Pointing out that something is overly reductive isn't "getting mad that someone said us media was bad"

None of us would be aware of the extent of abuses in the conservative Hasidic Jew community in NYC without that massive piece in the NYT. And they broke the Weinstein story, regardless of how "common knowledge" it was in Hollywood circles.

e: It's kind of a moot point because if you're reading and following USCE, you're going to see a bunch of reposts of US news media, and whether or not those outlets are in your personal approved sources list, you should be able to read them critically if you want to post here.

Also lol at the idea that you don't need to use media literacy or a critical eye when reading "better" sources, like The Intercept! :ironicat:

Gumball Gumption posted:

actual suggestions for the original question would still be more useful.

Someone responded with suggestions, and a couple people pointed out flaws in the reasoning. If anyone recommends media that you can simply read uncritically to get the real, true news, they're full of poo poo and high on their own confirmation bias.

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Apr 12, 2023

# ? Apr 12, 2023 19:11

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Gumball Gumption posted:

actual suggestions for the original question would still be more useful.

The original conversation was about knowing the blind spots of your news since they all suck in some ways.

Most other news had some nuance but it got lazy somewhere around "MSM US media bad".

Like, I don't know that Wapo/NYT/ABC/etc are any more or less awful domestically than the BBC. NYT main reporting is OK but they're just as transphobic as the Guardian. It's a longer conversation media bias that people tend to not want to have because it's easier to just say they suck, but pretty much all news has problems.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 19:17

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

Oxyclean posted:

Entranced industries is absolutely the biggest hurdle, but even if they were gone tomorrow, there would be a lot of inertia to overcome. Like so much of america is built in a way that makes good public transit challenging to implement even if the will was there. Enough people live in low density areas or work jobs that alternatives to cars are non-starters.

It's definitely not something that we can't fix or work to improve, it's just something we sadly need to have started yesterday.

Oh absolutely. I didn't say that this was the only problem. But it does seem to be the overarching one, and it certainly has a lot more to do with the state of things than not having invented a way to produce lab meat at scale.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 19:18

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Good and bad news from a new analysis of the IRA's impact on the budget and greenhouse gas emissions:

- EV sales, initial forecasts of industrial acceptance, and vendor sign-ups for the IRA rebates and tax credits have been about much higher than predicted.

That means it will likely reduce emissions faster than originally estimated and see larger adoption faster.

However, this also means that the bill will likely end up costing significantly more because parts of the bill don't have a cap on how much money is allotted to them and it was assumed that participation would be lower.

Treasury delayed implementing the sourcing rules for EVs to qualify for the consumer rebate until this month and many models that were only temporarily eligible for the rebate sold far higher than expected.

- That means that the promise that it would reduce the deficit is likely not going to be correct unless the IRS revamp generates revenue on the much higher end of estimates.

The original estimate had it lowering the deficit by $48 billion, but it now may increase the deficit by $216 billion.

- Part of the original estimate also assumed that participation would be lower (and the bill less expensive) because other countries would copy the IRA formula.

It assumed that other countries would provide significant subsidies for clean energy, which would draw some businesses to those countries for those tax benefits. So far, that hasn't happened and instead they have higher participation in the U.S. than expected with foreign companies like Honda, Toyota, and BMW building new factories in the U.S. to become compliant with the requirements for subsidies and tax credits.

However, they don't know for sure if that will continue to be the case for the next 10 years and it could change. If it did, that would alleviate the strain on the benefits with fixed limits on how much money they are appropriated and return the bill back to deficit-neutral/lowering. But, it may also mean that some of the higher than expected green jobs and factories that have been built in the U.S. could go elsewhere in 5-10 years.

tl:dr version:

Emissions reductions and rebates may be much larger than initially expected. However, the bill is likely going to be more expensive than assumed and increase the deficit instead of lowering it.

Environmentalists generally consider this a very good result because it means that there will be larger reductions in carbon emissions faster than initially expected. But, there are some rebate programs that have a limited amount of money appropriated for them, so if the popularity continues to be much higher than expected for most of the 10 years the IRA rebates and credits are in effect, then some programs may run out of money several years early.

https://twitter.com/RichardRubinDC/status/1646164454034341888
https://twitter.com/RichardRubinDC/status/1646165347525902344

quote:

Green Tax Credits Are Likely to Be More Popular�and Expensive�Than Expected

WASHINGTON�Green tax credits from last year�s climate law are likely to be far more popular than anticipated, potentially reducing carbon emissions�but also increasing costs to U.S. taxpayers, according to an emerging consensus of government and private-sector forecasters.

Buyers of electric vehicles and clean-energy producers could claim tax credits worth hundreds of billions of dollars more than lawmakers expected when they passed the Inflation Reduction Act, recent estimates from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., researchers at a Brookings Institution conference and the White House Office of Management and Budget suggest.

�Our estimates reflect the enthusiasm that the global industry has shown to invest in�EVs, renewables, clean hydrogen, carbon capture and bioenergy as a result of the clear, attractive, long duration incentives,� said Michele Della Vigna, author of Goldman�s Carbonomics report.

The 2022 law was aimed at spurring a clean-energy future, using a range of incentives to encourage electric cars, solar energy, green hydrogen, nuclear power and carbon-capture facilities. It also includes other provisions, such as funds for the Internal Revenue Service and prescription-drug changes.

To environmental advocates and the Biden administration, more people using the tax credits could mean faster-than-expected results: Reductions in carbon emissions, higher wages for workers on clean-energy projects and supply chains that are less reliant on China.

But the tax-credit boom could undermine another administration talking point about the law: The claim that it will reduce long-run budget deficits. The Goldman and Brookings analyses contend that the tax credits could cost American taxpayers three times as much as the $271 billion forecast when Congress passed the law. The OMB figure points in the same direction, though its estimates about revenue from tougher tax enforcement�which are larger than congressional projections�turn the law from deficit-increasing to deficit-reducing.

�It�s extraordinarily more expensive than was forecast,� said Donald Schneider, a former House GOP aide who is now deputy head of U.S. policy at Piper Sandler. �This puts a huge target on the back of these credits.�

Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama, said the tax credits look significantly larger than the earlier projections, at a scale that would make the law budget-neutral rather than reducing the deficit. �A betting person would bet that it�s going to cost more, but I don�t think that bet is ready to settle yet,� he said.

Congressional Republicans unanimously voted against the law. They have questioned the claims that it would reduce budget deficits and contended that the tax credits amount to inefficient corporate welfare. President Biden and Senate Democrats can block changes for now, but Republicans could propose paring back the clean-energy breaks to help pay for extending a different set of tax cuts that are set to expire in 2025.

Ashley Schapitl, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said the law is helping to create jobs and reduce emissions. The Brookings analysis says the subsidies� costs would still be far below the societal benefits of reducing emissions. The tax credits also could end up costing less if other countries copy them and some companies go overseas instead of taking the U.S. subsidies.

�Treasury expects other countries will follow our lead and take similar steps to enact their own clean energy incentives, which will help lower the cost of clean energy and allow the world to achieve our shared climate goals more quickly,� Ms. Schapitl said.

Estimates of the law�s budget impact can be hard to compare and carry some uncertainty. The congressional estimates don�t attempt to measure the full cost of tax credits; instead, they look for the incremental cost compared with current policy and could include effects such as electric-vehicle popularity cutting fuel-tax revenue. The private-sector estimates, meanwhile, are sensitive to interest rates, Treasury Department regulations and the speed of project permitting.

In September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the IRA would reduce budget deficits by $54 billion from 2022 through 2031. That includes the law�s other changes such as higher corporate taxes and prescription-drug policies, and it excludes things such as revenue from tougher IRS enforcement.

A comparable January estimate from OMB found that the IRA would cause a $216 billion increase in budget deficits over the same period, though that figure doesn�t break out whether the differences from CBO are caused by green tax credits. The White House and OMB declined to comment.

Some of the discrepancy between the previous forecasts and the new projections may be because the congressional estimates were low when the law was enacted.

CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (which analyzed the tax pieces of the law) arrived at their figures relative to a baseline they set in 2021 that remained in place until the 2022 vote, a period when the economy changed significantly. In addition, it can be difficult to predict things such as the speed at which new industries will emerge and thus how much tax credits will cost over 10 years.
The outside analyses suggest that the initial projections underestimated interest in electric vehicles, in particular.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimate said the electric-vehicle incentives would cost $14 billion over a decade compared with prior law. The Goldman and Brookings estimates now say the total cost of those credits would be about $390 billion.

The Treasury Department has implemented the electric-vehicle credit in several ways that have differed from some lawmakers� expectations. Treasury delayed rules requiring set amounts of battery components and critical minerals to be sourced from particular locations until this month, meaning more vehicles were temporarily eligible for the credit.

And it has allowed more vehicles to be eligible if they are bought by businesses for leasing, a workaround that skirts some restrictions in the law.

The IRA�s passage has been followed by a flurry of announcements from auto makers and battery makers, all trumpeted by the Biden administration.
�All of that is swamping our initial projections,� said John Larsen of the Rhodium Group.

Estimates of carbon-capture tax credits and hydrogen tax credits also could turn out to be low, depending on how regulations are written and how quickly those technologies get adopted.

The law�s tax credits are largely open-ended. Some, such as the $7,500 electric-vehicle credit, have caps per purchase and income limits. Others, such as investment tax credits for wind and solar energy, limit the value of the tax benefit to a percentage of the cost of a project. But in general, more electric vehicles, wind turbines and hydrogen fuels will mean more tax credits.

�We�re in this weird moment,� said Mr. Larsen. �It�s like all the money�s on the table and you just have to see how the market responds.�

# ? Apr 12, 2023 19:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 14:37

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

I like how nobody ever talks about the cost of NOT doing poo poo about climate change.

# ? Apr 12, 2023 19:22

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »