There’s such an avalanche of crazy coming out of the “transition” that it’s hard to keep up. But for right now I just want to focus on one small part of what’s going on. Let’s start with Oliver Milman at Mother Jones, Repealing Biden’s Climate Bills Won’t Kill Clean Energy, But It May Cripple US Manufacturing. Milman begins,
The United States’s blossoming emergence as a clean energy superpower could be stopped in its tracks by Donald Trump, further empowering Chinese leadership and forfeiting tens of billions of dollars of investment to other countries, according to a new report.
Trump’s promise to repeal major climate policies passed during Joe Biden’s presidency threatens to push $80 billion of investment to other countries and cost the US up to $50 billion in lost exports, the analysis found, surrendering ground to China and other emerging powers in the race to build electric cars, batteries, solar and wind energy for the world. …
… Under Biden, the US legislated the Chips Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act, all aimed in varying degrees to deal with the climate crisis while also bolstering American manufacturing.
The IRA alone, with its major incentives for clean energy, is credited with helping create around 300,000 new jobs, with the vast majority of $150 billion in new manufacturing investment flowing to Republican-held districts.
See Where the Chips Act Money Has Gone at The Verge for more details into exactly where the new manufacturing investments have flowed so far. Back to Oliver Milman:
Trump, however, has called this spending wasteful and vowed to erase it. “I will immediately terminate the green new scam,” the president-elect said shortly before his election win. “That will be such an honor. The greatest scam in the history of any country.”
If Trump kills the program, this would not only erase the jobs that would be funded by the Chips Act. It would also keep American companies reliant on foreign sources for components, including microchips and batteries, that we could be making here. Basically, it would undercut domestic manufacturing on a massive scale and put the U.S. on the road to being one of those shithole countries Trump likes to complain about. Not to mention there are also national security issues regarding being able to provide our own microchips and batteries.
Politico reports that Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo “is aiming to commit nearly every unspent dollar in its $50 billion microchip-subsidy program before President-elect Donald Trump takes over in January, an effort that would effectively cement a massive industrial legacy before the GOP can reverse course.”
The Chips money alone is a massive undertaking. Congress allocated $50 billion in subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing and R&D. So far only two companies have received binding awards from the Department of Commerce’s manufacturing program. To hit her target, Raimondo still needs to nail down contracts with Intel, Micron, Samsung and SK hynix — multibillion-dollar deals that have, at times, been rocky and required renegotiations.
Surely the heads of those companies know the offer will likely be off the table after Trump takes office. But just watch — as manufacturing plants open, Trump will take credit for them.
"The greatest scam in the history of any country"
Oh he should just look in the mirror!
I may be reading the reports wrong but the NY prosecutors seem to have decided that sentencing for the felony hush-money case can be delayed until 2029. I'm not sure that's a bad idea. There's no way Trump will be required to begin his sentence before 2029. If the decision is, pronounce sentence as soon as the 2029 transition is complete, then the conviction stands and Trump can't appeal until 2029. To the degree Trump messes with NY state, those acts of aggression against NY state if they're in retaliation for the conviction might (not a lawyer here) be taken into consideration. The judge would need evidence that disparate treatment by Trump which hurt NY was an act of revenge FOR the conviction. But Trump will supply that evidence -he has to personally sign every act of revenge. If Judge Merchan and his family are made targets by Trump, that might (not a lawyer here) be considered as the direct opposite of contrition or taking responsibility for the crime.
So the Sword of Damocles would hang over Trump for four years. And Trump would hang himself.
To utter the phrase green new scam and label it the greatest scam ever is a political tabu in most of the civilized world even among the common people, the hoi polloi, the masses, the great unwashed, the rabble or as we call them here in this country Trump supporters.
That it is not here is a direct failure of our educational system and both public and private school systems.
No, not everyone can understand and reason to this complex problem. Yes, we have only two political parties in the States, and no green political party. The green factor is a bit larger factor in the Democratic Party than in the Old Republican Party but the new republican party under Trump is rigidly anti-green. It sees the lack of understanding and even indoctrination in environmental science as a political exploitational opportunity and they use it well. Now environmental science is not politically correct, or really worse than that able to be cherry picked by politicians. The weird agency heads will screen the science, and the great authority will approve according to his infallible intuition which varies and seems transactionally manipulatable. Some use the term corrupt instead. Either way it is gross misuse of authority. Even some Old School Republicans see that.
Brian Fagan is quite a prolific author and entitled one of his books Climate Chaos. Climate chaos is now being suggested as a more appropriate term for what we are up against than climate change. It is argued that climate change is too weak of a term and does not convey accurately the problem we are against. I would go further and contend that chaos is a major value of the present republican party, and they use chaos politically. Immigration for example is a problem to be exploited not solved. Illegal drug problems also appear to fall in that category. The new republican party sees addiction as another problem they can exploit. You can bet the only approved programs will be those they control and profit from. Effectiveness and iatrogenic effects will be quite secondary considerations.
The horror goes on and on.
Yes, transactional = corrupt. It is unfortunate in our country that the the word "corrupt" has been eviscerated of its actual meaning, and has come to nothing but a schoolyard insult.
Well, undocumented immigrants are a different angle right now. You're right: normally, the idea is to leave them as a powerless workforce to be exploited semi-voluntarily.
With fascism, you have a different thing. A fascist would want to round up all immigrants, with penalties for aiding and abetting that would *include* not informing on your neighbors if you suspected *them* of helping "illegals". Once you have people who will narc on their friends for fear for their families, then the fascist is in power, well, and truly. That's the fascist's weapon: fear of severe penalties for noncompliance, starting with nominal security issues at first (so the penalties are defensible), but then spreading as it becomes necessary to crush "the enemy within".
So, the idea, that there is a dangerous security threat from undocumented migrants, is one that warns of impending fascism.
Earlier, I saw someone say that sentencing might be deferred. Honestly: I want to know if the NY judge can put him on supervised release until his sentencing, along with a probation officer who will monitor him for any signs he is engaging in unlawful activity.
I know the SCOTUS would probably deny it, but, its actually a powerful compromise between the rights of a state to hold a criminal to account, while allowing him to maintain his employment.
The State of New York has a right to maintain control of a criminal, up to and including incarceration. When the President is the criminal, there's a conflict, but, to maintain the right of NY, his monitoring for unlawful behavior would be reasonable, though the NY national guard better have someone willing to be called up to be royal probation officer, with a high enough security clearance, because I don't think Trump would allow any of the US military to be assigned that duty, nor anyone in the executive branch, which would wipe out most people who have the needed clearances.
Just a dream – I doubt he'll be placed on parole, and if he were, the SCOTUS would probably scotch it immediately. (Or beer it, if Kavanaugh is ruling.)
Well, here some professional and balanced views on the supposed effects on US manufacturing, the first link also with a comparison of the approaches to it:
https://manufacturingdigital.com/articles/kamala-trump
https://www.engineerlive.com/content/trump-back-what-it-means-us-manufacturing
https://www.bonadio.com/article/trumps-policy-shifts-whats-ahead-for-u-s-manufacturing-distribution/
But still I think the discussion, also in the links above, leaves out certain geopolitical and technical facts:
-that the US whether under Biden, Harris or Trump was and is working on bringing down the European, esp. German, economy and manufacturing in the attempt to eliminate competition and bring back manufacturing and jobs to the US;
-that so-called 'clean' or 'green' energy is a scam to a big degree and that it is not sustainable and more so, that it is not feasible to secure the energy supply with it. And this, where the gross direction (AI etc.) is in consuming more and more energy, instead of less. And in the US therefore, one reads, Microsoft entered a deal in reactivating an atomic power plant, Google in a deal involving new innovative atomic power plants;
-that Trump supporters, esp. Musk, also do have interests in the so-called 'clean energy' manufacturing;
-that there are no markets for more and more electric vehicles, that it is not desirable on a global scale to have more and more people use cars or individual transport, that they are not more energy efficient than traditional cars;
-that the so-called clean energy already leads to new (proxy) wars and investment in the defense industry, e.g. Ukraine, over natural resources like Lithium for batteries, and that such wars and lithium mining is anything but 'clean' or 'green';
-that this way or the other, all means more costs and inflation for the normal people and public and gains for some corporations and oligarchs, just who's getting how much of the cake is in questions between Harris and Trump supporting oligarchs and corporations;
The above is not exhaustive.
The above post doesn't merit much reply. But I'd draw your attention to the use of the word "fact", which the author tosses about casually when he/she/it (pick your pronoun – a troll is always "it") – when the author is tossing out an opinion.
Anybody who selects "so-called" when they are bad-mouthing renewable energy deserves a seat on the hot side of hell fueled entirely by fossil fuels. (That's an opinion, not a fact.)
The post never once mentions global warming or the consequences of more intense weather, the trends of drought where there hasn't been, and flooding where there hasn't been. (historically)We saw snow in the Sahara this year. A comment, post, or article that presumes to belittle renewable energy without conceding the real global threat has the value of used digital toilet paper.
The global trend of rising temperature (fact) guarantees the rise of the oceans. (Fact) Hurricanes are being supercharged by rising ocean temperatures. (Thesis supported by statistics on the strength and frequency of hurricanes.) We are past the calculated tipping point of reversing climate change without catastrophic events. The question is how severe and for how long climate change will savage the planet.
I thank you and my blood pressure thanks you. Kind of cute that may be me thing in a sick way.
Is the blog switching to BlueSky which is less troll friendly than X?
@doug: a troll is then somebody who wrote something that in your understanding contradicts your beliefs?
I did not mention climate change because I do also consider it a fact and what I've written does not deny it in any sense.
Where did I promote fossile fuels? Where did I say 'clean' energy wouldn't be a good idea if it where so? I did not use the word 'renewable' energy at all. One reason for it is, that according to normal 'belief, even scientific I'd guess, what some call facts' energy can only be transformed.
So, I was referring to US companies that reportedly choose atomic energy as their option. I did not say this would be good or bad in my view. They did not ask me.
So, I was saying war, defense investment (=weapons) and lithium mining is not 'clean' or 'green', do you disagree with that?
What I was writing was, that if one would take 'green' or 'clean' seriously, if one would care about climate change, one would see to reduce energy consumption, we needed less energy consumption, we needed less individual transport and less cars. That's clearly written there. It's not about producing and selling more cars, it's about less and about more alternatives, e.g. public transport. I did not promote traditional cars over electric cars, I said they are the same in energy efficiency. And that doesn't help the climate then, unfortunately. We needed less of them, that was my point. And this would help the climate.
And that touches on the strategic point of manufacturing and consumption: what, if we needed less in some areas? There you go, why stimulate manufacturing with state money in areas where less consumption would be better than more?
That's maybe the same theme, why others – and I'm speculating here a bit now, of course – fancy investments in so-called 'disruptive' trends: they may think, we could only replace industries and consumption. And again, I don't say this is good or bad.
Oh, I now used 'so-called' again…It triggers you every time you read it, as well as 'fact', as well as not reading certain things?
@doug and Bernie: the 'troll' answer should have gone to Bernie, sorry.
I'd like to add that I'm not owning/using a car for 14 years now and instead use public transport and that I don't eat meat, no milk, no yoghurt, and that I'm saving on energy and try to have a reasonable life style. I'm not font of forcing such things on others, though. But whatever you want to read into my comment, the question is how do we live it?
And shall I or people buy (electric) cars, and a second, and a third, and a tv, and another one, and electrify everything in the house and make it remotely controlled, because this would be good for growth in manufacturing? You can call these goods and energy 'green', 'clean' or 'renewable', even if it were so (it's always just 'relatively'), it does not make sense, or? There it would be better to consume less, use public transport, use less electricity, have things work manually.
But one could eat not just one apple a day to keep the doctor away…
Some nations were working on reducing their population growth. Now the media reports already these nations would have a problem because without migration their population would age (people live longer) and shrink. I mean, that was the idea. So, there would be less consumption, which needs less manufacturing.
Part of the economical challenges is, that there are no innovations in society and politics in order to handle it. And that there is industries that produce things that are not good, not needed, or not in that quantities: pharma producing fentanyl and other such drugs; chemical industry producing pesticides, genetic crops, weapons and defense (as motor for re-industrialization, were it was said before we needed an economy of peace and not of war), and all else as ideas is digitalization, AI, new energy (that isn't so ground-shaking), electrical cars, industrial foods including insects?
So, the US wants to built electrical cars and sell them to the world, China also, the Europeans also, Koreans also, Japanese also? They don't sell well in Europe for different reasons (one being the energy costs have gone up drastically), in the news there's VW laying off people for the first time in Germany, Ford in the UK. Can it be that everybody wanting to produce EVs and selling them to the others won't work, won't solve the economical challenges? And that one can call them as 'clean' as one wants, not buying one and using public transport is 'cleaner', or? Talking about the environment…
Wow. So, you took bonehead physics, and think you're informed, eh? Energy can be renewable, because it *can* be transformed.
So: you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Use the sun to gain energy – transform it (with losses – your loss is SUNLIGHT), use it, use the sun, etc..
If you're using solar panels, your loss is instantaneous, and it's in the efficiency of the panels.
If you're growing, e.g., algae to make oil to use for energy, your loss is slower, and realized when you extract the oil, but, remember: the loss is *sunlight*. Grow more algae, you've renewed your oil supply, with some losses, etc..
I know, sunlight isn't *renewable*, it's just practicably inexhaustible, for the next billion years or so. Call me in a million and tell me how stupid I am if I turn out to be wrong about this, okay?
Doug –
Plz avoid jumping to conclusions based on us-vs-them framework. Did you read the links MaybeM provided? They aren't anti-AGW propaganda, and neither are the bullet-points in MaybeM's comment.
After I read the first post by MaybeM, I thought he was an idiot. Now that I've read two more comments by him/her/it, I'm certain of it. I'm furious after the election that a major portion of the US population believes things that just ain't so. The fantasyland perspective isn't limited to the right.
I've lost patience with muddled thinking. If the proposal is reducing fossil fuel emissions through reduced consumption and mass transit, how do you make it happen?
Building mass transit in a large area that's already developed is a nightmare – and it's expensive. Who pays? Second proposal – less consumption. How do we all get in a Walden Pond frame of mind despite the fact American society is built on consumption? (I agree that corporations want to suck us dry from the cradle to the grave but nobody has a Harry Potter wand to make it go away.)
My back is up because the abysmally impractical answers are presented as an alternative to renewables. I hear very clearly – let's back off the commitment to replacing fossil fuel energy with renewable energy because it will be easier if we accept a lower standard of living and take the train.
The clock is ticking on the ecological bomb we're riding in an orbit around the sun. We've dithered for so many decades after the problem was known that serious consequences are now certain (opinion.) Don't expect me to be respectful and sympathetic to proposals that will aggravate a desperate situation.
@doug: pls see my answer below after 'w' to both of you, thank you.
Finally a bit of good news. Trumps child molester pick for AG has "pulled out"! Who's next I would bet Ted "Cancun" Cruz!
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-transition-news-11-21-24/index.html
I was guessing Cruz, too.
From I'm reading McTurtle was the fourth hard no to tank Gaetz. After the election trying to find some positive spin I thought that since McConnell is no longer in leadership he can finally get a backbone and stick the shiv in Stump's back. Hopefully he tanks Hoghead, Tolstoy, and the Snow Queen's nominations as well!
I'm not sure about Cruz. Trump picked two loyalists with experience to be A/G. Both of them refused to cross a line, I think. They didn't indict HRC, for example. Reportedly, Trump made the demand on more than one occasion but neither did the dirty deed. Trump wants an A/G who will ingore the law when Trump instructs him to. Cruz won't go to jail for Trump.
Well not cancun Cruz but he's pick Pam bondo Bondi. She was the florida ag what buried the Trump university case for a lousy ten grand. So she's diaper Don's type, bottle blond, works for cheap. She'll do just fine!
My response to MaybeM: Yes, there are many challenges along the way and no silver bullets available. But what you seem to be proposing would be for human civilization to return to the way things were before the coal age.
The way I see it is this: To simplify it, the options we have are a) go back pre-industrialization, pre-coal. b) move to a massively non-fossil fuel civilization (solar, wind, hydro) [doesn't have to be 100%, 80-90% might suffice.]
I think (b) is way better. Electrifying everything including manufacturing, agriculture, ranching and fishing will be helpful as we create more and more renewable energy production. And getting there will take use of fossil fuels along the way. But we have to start somewhere and keep pushing the transition. Eventually we will only need tolerable levels of fossil fuel and maybe ultimately we will need none at all.
But if we just try to get the world to go back centuries will mean way more time with rising use of fossil fuels. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
@w and doug: well, reality: Us to triple nuclear energy until 2050, initiated by Biden, supported by Trump. Red and blue, same politics: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-12/cop29-us-has-plan-to-triple-nuclear-power-as-energy-demand-soars
Doug, public transport infrastructure costs money? We were not talking about money, money, money? It's not that this article here is about the plan of Dems to take 100bn federal gov money (that is not there, you could call it future tax revenues to be paid by somebody) in order to stimulate manufacturing in certain areas vs. the Trump plan to stimulate manufacturing with a different focus via tariffs and tax cuts that 'cost money'? Money invested in public transport is not making money for the economy and generating money then from passengers etc.?
US population growth to decrease from currently 0.5% to 0.2% and consisting in net migration. Less migration, no population growth.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59697
Why would not increasing consumption incl. energy consumption or slightly reducing it mean to go back to old undeveloped times? Where is the innovation here to save energy? The problem of the US population is still not enough movement, unhealthy foods and diet, unnatural lifestyle, asset and consumer price inflation, gov spending for wars abroad etc. It's not a lack of gimmicks…
I'm sorry I have been busy and not monitoring comments. I tend to block people who are causing friction. And, frankly, you aren't making a lot of sense. Perhaps it's time to bring this conversation to a close. Be more careful in the future.
GoBikeGo commented to another pressing issue, but the comment is appropriate here too it seems. It communicates the fear our present situation poses. We are not secure, and the incoming administration is clueless. They need a time machine to take the world back 75 years, so they have the proper skills and solutions.
What is there to add, except Gobikego nailed the reason for our horror.
"where is the innovation here to save energy"?
Isn't the issue here to obtain more energy while reducing the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels? By doing so we may be able to stem the tide of climate change due to global warming. I don't think we can reverse it, that ship has sailed.
Innovation is not limited to the USA, but it is there if you look for it.
But don't stop at American exceptionalism or jingoism as a solution to the problems. The world must be involved, and that's where most of the effort is ongoing right now. Places like China and Europe find the need to reduce fossil fuels by investigating new sources of energy and implementing the method to obtaining and maintaining them as a top priority.
Things like solar (the huge nuclear furnace in the sky), thermal, wind (wind turbines, NOT windmills) tides and more.
I don't do links well and I am still reeling from the election results to get into a long discussion thread on this.
Besides , Doug can do a better job than I can.
So, take it away and carry on…..
And also geothermal for heating and cooling.