23 ms·

A plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US

127 points by jseliger 7y ago

sxates 7y ago
These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So big in fact that we face a generational backlash against de-carbonizing. It takes time to make big shifts like this. People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year. We have to ramp up the renewable infrastructure at the same pace we wind down the legacy infrastructure, and in a way that doesn't bankrupt entire towns and even states. Maybe it's not possible to tackle this without great pain to a lot of people. Maybe if we had a 'Pearl Harbor' type event that galvanized a super majority of americans into action and sacrifice... I'm pessimistic that we'll have that moment, that we'll change that many minds, or that we'll have the fortitude and resolve to do what must be done. But I'm glad Inslee is doing what he's doing, and working through the policies we'd need to get there, not just talking about doing "something".
- yokaze 7y ago
  Funny, that you say that. I actually think, policy based deprecation is the biggest possible boost the economy could get. Think CDs Vs Vinyl, VHS to DVD. Or more on point: Catalytic converters. Having to buy new stuff drives the economy, being content with "what works" throttles it (e.g. mobile devices, laptops). Sure, there might be a backlash, but it's not like there isn't any opposition now. Being to cautious (i.e. slow) bears the risk that people resist change because you are slowly (ergo constantly) changing things, and they don't see the benefit of the policy change. (Assuming that it is indeed the case) Edit: missing verb
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    To add to this, which I think is entirely correct, it took the effects of spending on arming for WW2 that finally brought the world out of the Great Depression. Unemployment went down and the economy surged. The US New Deal helped but it wasn't nearly enough. Edit: Is this controversial somehow? I thought it pretty standard and well known history.
    - graycat 7y ago
      There's an old remark: "Recession and depression are the easiest things in the world to cure -- just print money.". The cause of our recessions and depressions was suddenly too little money. That is, a lot of money was destroyed. How? When the banks, etc. got in trouble, the multiplier effect enormously reduced the money supply. Soooooo, have some new regulations on reserve ratios, etc. for banks and then print the missing money. The new regulations will keep the banks, etc. from using the newly printed money and the multiplier effect to create too much money and inflation. Many millions of people died before these ideas were accepted. How to print money? One way is for the Federal Reserve to buy bonds from the US Treasury. Then the Treasury has the money and the Federal Government can spend it, e.g., on roads, bridges, dams, etc. Another way is for the Federal Reserve to loan money to the member banks, and the banks loan the money to people who want to buy houses, cars, commercial buildings, etc. How did WWII get us out of the Depression? Once people started shooting at us, we were willing to print money for the war. But we printed about the right amount since after the war we didn't have massive inflation.
      - blackflame7000 7y ago
        The US Government started printing money as you say for government projects as early as 1930, 12 years before the war. Hoover dam for example. So are you saying it takes 12+ years for your theory to work? Also, how many millions more have died due to over-printing of money? MMT is a disaster waiting to happen because at the end of the day Credit=Trust and you can only borrow so much before you lose that trust. Trust is everything and debt is an incursion.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year. Or ever, perhaps. I can no longer remember where, but I recently read an article about a backlash by California Democrats against Green New Deal-type ideas. What stood out was someone saying that the idea of retraining workers for other types of jobs was offensive. If people in the oil and gas industry liked their job, then they ought to be allowed to keep it until they retired.
  - steve_adams_86 7y ago
    That's a tough thing. Imagine someone was telling you that you had to change your career because people decided it's no good. What will you do? Put your life on hold and go retrain for something you never intended to train for? Possibly (probably) earn less? Potentially need to move for work? It's complicated. I think it needs to happen. The US and Canada both spend major subsidies on oil and gas, and that money would do wonders in supporting and retraining these works. However, we'd need a very good plan and very good acceptance of it amongst the work force and tax payers. This would all be incredibly expensive. People would resent the retraining because it would cost tax payers to benefit a small subset of people, while less oil production equals higher prices for... Everything. People would be very upset, both workers and citizens. It's going to be so hard to get people on the same page. I hope the disasters that push us to act aren't too awful.
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      It’s already happened for almost everyone employed mining coal, because of automation. No climate change needed.
      - mikeash 7y ago
        Just for perspective, coal mining employs about half as many Americans as Whole Foods. That’s one specialty grocery chain. The amount of attention given to coal miners is absurd.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  This right here is why nothing will happen and we're hosed. > It takes time to make big shifts like this. We have 11 years to cut global CO2 emissions by 50%, and even that may not be enough. > Maybe it's not possible to tackle this without great pain to a lot of people. That might have been possible if we'd started in earnest 30 years ago. Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term or famine and death in the long term. I expect we'll opt for our grandchildren's generation to starve.
  - derp_dee_derp 7y ago
    > Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term or famine and death in the long term. I expect we'll opt for our grandchildren's generation to starve It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Please stop using armegeddon like language to describe climate change. It doesn't help if you sound like a crazed cultist.
    - crispinb 7y ago
      > It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Only the degree of certainty of the statement is exaggerated. The content is well within any reasonable scenario-planning approach. Near-term catastrophe may not be the most likely outcome, but on all accounts it is likely enough to be the most genuinely alarming threat we've yet faced. You may not like the tone, but surely you can muster the courage to set aside your personal taste with regard to something so important?
      - derp_dee_derp 7y ago
        > You may not like the tone, but surely you can muster the courage to set aside your personal taste with regard to something so important? You sound exactly like a Jehovah's witness or a Mormon missionary.
        deleted 7y ago
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  The plan looks feasible to me. Certainly much more feasible than Kennedy's pledge to land on the moon before the end of the decade...
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    Certainly much more feasible than stopping manufacturing of all non-military steel products and asking people to donate steel for manufacturing tools, weapons, and vehicles for WW2. The issue isn't that it's a huge task. The issue is that the current industries and governments are dragging their feet trying to mik every penny they can from their current dynasty.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- just_myles 7y ago
  I see your point. You don't want to wallop an entire industry but at some point it kind of has to happen. "The second piece is phasing out fossil fuel production more broadly. Inslee would establish a “Presidential Commission on Energy Transition” (including the secretaries of several federal agencies) that will be “tasked with identifying and setting in motion the implementation of federal policies to phase out domestic fossil fuel production.” The commission will have a special focus on a “just transition” for fossil fuel workers and communities." My biggest concern here. Hope it is more comprehensive than this vox outline.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Thirty years is a long time. Think about how different the economy was in, say, 1930 compared to 1900. Or 1840 to 1870. How much fossil fuel infrastructure lasts for thirty years? We could almost do it by just using the natural replacement cycle.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So big in fact that we face a generational backlash against de-carbonizing. It still seems like the best solution is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, i.e. a carbon tax which is merely refunded to everyone in the form of a fixed tax credit. Then the average person pays e.g. $5000 in carbon tax but receives a $5000 tax credit. But the person who burns a disproportionate amount of carbon pays $7000 and still only receives the $5000 credit, meanwhile someone who burns less carbon pays only $2000 and actually turns a profit after the tax credit. Then we don't need all of this command and control. People have the right incentives, so they buy electric cars and heat pumps and solar panels, and the problem solves itself. The only real thing you have to tweak is the amount of the tax/credit, to adjust the trade off between being too fast/disruptive and too slow/ineffective.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > It still seems like the best solution is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, i.e. a carbon tax which is merely refunded to everyone in the form of a fixed tax credit. A revenue neutral carbon tax means that government is dependent for funding for operations (or, if you follow MMP, “is dependent for extracting sufficient money from the economy for the current degree of inflation control”) on continued carbon emissions at the present level.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > A revenue neutral carbon tax means that government is dependent for funding for operations (or, if you follow MMP, “is dependent for extracting sufficient money from the economy for the current degree of inflation control”) on continued carbon emissions at the present level. Not if the amount of the tax credit in a given year is tied to the amount of revenue the tax generates, i.e. it remains revenue-neutral. Then it automatically phases itself out as less carbon is burned.
  - cavisne 7y ago
    Revenue neutral carbon taxes are a fantasy, because they are pushed by progressive politicians, yet are deeply regressive in their impact. Inslee admits this, and simply wants to add a new tax, and refund it selectively to people who he thinks deserve the money/access to electricity, and outlaw the use cases which don't. Purely coincidentally this is the same effect as making the tax system more progressive, but actually it's all about climate change.
- kevingadd 7y ago
  Incrementalism is definitely safer, but it also doesn't work because every 4-8 years, global warming fans take over and unwind all the incremental improvements that have been made and kick us further down the slope towards complete disaster. Observe how in the US renewables investments and climate progress are being undone while the current political leaders are talking about bringing back coal. No amount of incremental progress will help if that stuff happens repeatedly. We have to fix it soon and fix it thoroughly so that our incremental progress doesn't just get undone in 4-8 years while the rest of the world is still sorting out their part of the climate crisis.
maximente 7y ago
unfortunately Inslee doesn't seem to have the fortitude to defy the DNC's ban on "outside" (uncontrolled?) climate debates. and for good pragmatic reason, imo: the DNC could probably ruin his future political career. https://www.gq.com/story/dnc-jay-inslee-climate-change https://www.gq.com/story/dnc-jay-inslee-climate-change
mogadsheu 7y ago
Inslee’s plan sounds like a door in the face technique to rile up extremist support. Who wants the nation to be heavily reliant on imports while the world develops alternatives? Besides our friends the Russians, Saudis, Iranians, and Venezuelans of course. It’s possible but entirely impractical, in the same way that removing all plastic from one’s household is possible.
newswriter99 7y ago
Change the word "plan" with "dream" and the article looks a lot less like a one-sided editorial. Articles like this start off from the angle of "we should do this" and in my opinion that's a BS way to frame a news story. Fossil fuels, especially natgas, serve a very specific function and the idea of putting the US at a disadvantage just so we can pat ourselves on the back as the rest of the world beats us in energy is ludicrous.
- phil248 7y ago
  The rest of the world is already beating us on energy. We are winning a game that is already over. We can keep patting ourselves on the back for generating and using so many fossil fuels so very well, or we can admit that a new game has started and get our asses on the field to compete.
  - newswriter99 7y ago
    >The rest of the world is already beating us on energy. [citation needed] We literally usurped control from OPEC thanks to fracking technology, which almost no one else in the world is using. EDIT: And let's mention our LNG exports while we're at it: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm I know HN is a mature forum where insults aren't conductive to discussion, but pull your head out of your ass.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Seems like the whole world is getting ahead of the US with all this feet dragging. That's the real disadvantage. Every major issue the country faces, the answer is "well it's a lot easier to just sweep this under the rug because I have an election coming up and gives I can upset so let's just not do anything about this". And now every corner of the US is crumbling, from healthcare to infrastructure.
lostmymind66 7y ago
The problem is that there is no real solution. All of these plans involve ripping fossil fuel dependency out by its roots and just hoping that we have something to replace it. The end result will be skyrocketing prices that only the wealthy can afford and a broken economy. I can't imagine any politician even thinking about sponsoring this as the devastation will be linked to them by their political rivals for many years to come. It's only being used as a talking point right now to get votes. How are we going to replace gasoline based cars in the US, when there is no infrastructure setup? We should concentrate on this first.
at-fates-hands 7y ago
Just saw an episode of American Pickers where they at some guys farm going through all of his 1920's era car collection. There was a little side part where they talked about how common electric cars were in the late 1880's and early 1900's before Henry Ford and the discovery of Texas oil. Made me think about where we could be if we had not made the wholesale switch to gas powered cars and instead focused on building a more cost effective electric car.
- OldHand2018 7y ago
  > before Henry Ford and the discovery of Texas oil There is a book called Internal Combustion which claims that Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were working together on an electric car but that in 1914 Edison's battery facility was destroyed in a massive blaze of very suspicious origin. With this setback and the beginning of WWI, the electric car was lost. You can read that book and make your own conclusions, of course :)
- megaremote 7y ago
  Imagine the wonderful world we could be living in if someone had banned personal cars? Instead of roads everywhere we would have parks on instead, places for kids and adults to exist. Instead of urban sprawl we could have had walk able and cyclable cities, with a lot less pollution. Instead of 40,000 dead every year in the US we could have them living. Instead of 100,000s seriously injured, we could close down hospitals. Etc...
godelski 7y ago
I want clean energy as much as the next guy, probably more (it's one of my top concerns). But plans like this are extremely naive. I agree, we need to get the of fossil fuels as fast as possible. But very few articles like this mention what we'd replace it with. Wind, solar, and hydro are all fantastic, but hydro is the only one that can produce constant output. It is also difficult to throttle the other two and bring up demands for surge. There's a big reason fossil fuels are still around and it isn't just politicians lining their pockets (not denying this is happening) and big oil conspiracies. The fact of the matter is we don't have the technology to replace it. Batteries aren't just there yet. Can we wait for them and hope? I'm not convinced considering we needed to start building things decades ago. I'm pro nuclear because of this, because it's the only current technology that can be built anywhere (yes, this is a major issue) and can throttle output. But people are scared of it. It deserves the fear, but what should be scarier is it's basically the safest form of energy we have. But it is also expensive and we can't just pretend that we'll get economies of scale right away. So what do we do? I think we push out fossil fuels as fast as possible. We heavily invest in battery tech. We minorly relax nuclear regulations to allow us to build newer generation reactors that are safer and hopefully cheaper. We go harder at researching fusion. And most importantly, we dump a lot into sequestration research. I think this is a safe bet, but it is still a bet. It's not a fool proof plan but it diversifies the portfolio and reduces risk of failure. But it'll be costly. Definitely not as expensive as a mass extinction event, but costly. And it is hard to get people to realize costs from an existential crisis. I mean look at the article. When we talk about climate we still aren't listening to the scientists and are talking past one another. So what do we do?
- phil248 7y ago
  Thermal solar can produce constant output. As can any system with sufficient storage capacity, be it battery or otherwise. It seems like most critiques of alternate energy come from a place of ignorance about alternative energy. No offense, it's just frustrating to hear people say "I care so much!" and then they don't even understand the basic landscape about which they claim to be so deeply concerned. It also seems to be the one area of technology where people suddenly lose all capacity to understand that technology changes, that the solutions we have today are not the solutions we will have tomorrow, and more investment always leads to more solutions. So many prefer to throw their arms up and say "It's impossible! Sometimes the wind doesn't blow so we're doomed!"
cassbot 7y ago
I was super happy to see this article and excitedly opened up the HN comments. Really disappointed by these comments. What is unscientific or extreme about Inslee's position? Ending fossil fuel subsidies does not mean fossil fuels are disappearing overnight. It means that the prices on fossil fuel derivatives will reflect their true prices, and consumers and the free market will adjust their consumption accordingly. Don't feel sorry for the status quo. It has plenty of momentum, lobbyists, and big money to keep going the way it's going. Inslee proposes to shift government incentives to what we wish to see more of. The fact that the technology does not exist now, is an even STRONGER reason to provide government incentives and deadlines for R&D. How we get on the moon in a decade? A leader shared a vision. People had the courage to believe and make it happen. We should EXPECT positive change and big vision from our leaders. Don't give up on the system! “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any.” ― Alice Walker
- ianai 7y ago
  Agreed on probably all points. Though I’m reasonably convinced that the technology does exist. On price, oil prices have a significant, direct, and negative effect on market productivity. We could actually put ourselves into a depression by raising prices highly. This is both a reason to get ourselves off fossil fuels ASAP and a hurdle to doing so. Politically, possibly the strongest and quickest change to the political system in the US would be passing the side stepping of the electoral college system across the states. It’s already over half way there. The House is more responsive to the democratic vote than the senate. The electoral college is the undemocratic influence on the President. So that change would make the 2/3rds of the federal government more democratic than current.
- hudibras 7y ago
  My feelings exactly. Depressing to see so many smart people here on HN saying "We need to do something about climate change!" But then when a presidential candidate rolls out an ambitious, comprehensive, soup-to-nuts proposal that fixes the problem, they say "No, not like that!"
lacker 7y ago
Since the US only accounts for about 15% of global CO2 emission, even if through some political miracle all of this plan came to pass, it wouldn't slow down global warming very much. We need solutions that will actually scale to be adopted by the whole planet. That means we need to make wind and solar cheaper, or possibly figure out how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Any solution that costs a whole lot of money and involves no technological innovation isn't going to work.
- alexandercrohde 7y ago
  >> Any solution that costs a whole lot of money and involves no technological innovation isn't going to work. A carbon-fee would put a market incentive for companies to invent technological solutions.
- fooblitzky 7y ago
  Wow this is the first time I've seen this argument used for the USA. "Only" 15% of global emissions - out of 195 countries. It's still the world's second biggest emitter - I think it would slow down global warming a lot if the US cut emissions. Usually this argument is trotted out in Australia, which is responsible for 1% of global emissions.
- johnwalker 7y ago
  We need both! In the meantime, I like the idea of ending subsidies for fossil fuels since it incentivizes building a moonshot technology that everyone can adopt, and curbing our reliance on them so that we have time to build better technology.
- jwr 7y ago
  See, that's the problem, right there: everybody says the same thing. "We are only responsible for a small part, so let's do nothing". So we do nothing.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fooblitzky 7y ago
The UN should apply sanctions to the USA equal to the amount of subsidies they are paying to fossil fuels companies.
- jwr 7y ago
  I am hoping for something which might have similar effects: that the EU will get its act together first and implement a carbon taxation scheme, imposing tariffs on imports from countries that do not implement a carbon tax. The US, unfortunately, seems to be in denial of the climate crisis. I wonder if in 30 years we will be putting todays climate deniers in courts (like the Nuremberg trials) for crimes against humanity.
- nichos 7y ago
  The UNs largest source of funding comes from the United States, more than the next 2 countries combined. China is a bigger problem anyway.
  - fooblitzky 7y ago
    It doesn't have to be just the US - the sanctions can be against any country which continues to subsidize fossil fuels, equal to the amount of their subsidies.
- briandear 7y ago
  The US could simply stop paying for much of the UN budget.
MR4D 7y ago
There is a reason that candidates likes this are all at the margin - they never consider the second order effects of their ideas. While his goal may be laudable, it would harm way more people than it would help. Let’s look at a couple simple things that getting rid of oil production would impact. (and keep in mind I’m keeping this short because typing on a mobile device sucks) 1 - price of electricity would go up (due to fuel costs) 2 - price of concrete would go up (due to both carbon usage and energy usage) 3 - price of steel would go up (probably way up due to the energy Use) 4 - price of plastic would go up (because of higher material cost) Other third-order effects would happen too: 5 - price of food would go up (because of higher fuel and material cost) 6 - housing costs would rise (due to energy costs and things like PVC which make up huge portions of any modern plumbing system) 7 - inflation would rise (due to energy, food, and materials price increases) And it just gets worse, hitting those on a budget or low income especially hard. Again, the ideas may be laudable, but changes like this take decades - like 5+ decades, not just one or two.
- alexandercrohde 7y ago
  I think you have this all wrong. Those prices going up is necessary and good. It creates a huge market pressure against all activities (including stuff like food sources) that produce a lot of carbon. If it damages our atmosphere to create a steel, then that factor NEEDS to be accounted for and COMPENSATED for at steel creation. Fortunately, in addition to driving down the appeal of high-pollution foods/materials, it'll also stimulate the market for green solutions by pumping huge financial incentives in. Does this mean life is harder for the poor? Yes. That's why proposal like this or green-new-deal often have a plan for that too.
- mikeash 7y ago
  We are already paying those higher prices. We’re just paying a lot of it in economically inefficient ways, though damage to the ecosystem and to people’s health. Getting people to pay for them with money would be better.
  - MR4D 7y ago
    I agree, but the timescale has to be over decades. People don’t adjust that quickly.
mythrwy 7y ago
If you break the economy badly enough the ability to effectively police (polluters or anything else) goes down with it.
pteredactyl 7y ago
Fossil fuel will be phased out when economically rational. Look at what natural gas did to carbon emissions in the US [0] Some Gov intervention may accelerate the change. But overall I’m weary of their efforts. [0] “Natural gas, which emits about half the amount of CO2 as coal, is being used more extensively due to its lower price and is displacing coal-fired generation...” https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/ https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/
- alexandercrohde 7y ago
  Uh... it's already economically rational... It's called a "negative externality" and the economic consensus is that the correct way to make a market efficiently operate is by applying a tax on those who generate "negative externalities" (i.e. damage the world around them) that can offset the damage. This is very basic and undisputed economics, so I'm not sure why you're waiving that phrase around.
  - pteredactyl 7y ago
    A tax would have to be enforced globally to be effective. Are you advocating for an International tax collector? To add to that, you could be the arbiter of “negative externalities” since you have such a good handle on theoretical economics. You could then use your authority to tax and save the world. Just want to say I’m very thankful you are here to share your intelligence via undisputed and very basic facts. I didn’t know reality was so black and white until you showed up. Thank you!
    - alexandercrohde 7y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBw6KvU51BE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBw6KvU51BE
adamzk 7y ago
I would go further and lower the voting age to 16 and not let anybody over 60 vote. Call it undemocratic, call it a violation of rights but theyre not going to be here when shit hits the fan and they're going to vote accordingly and in doing so they will prevent anybody under 18 from making it to their age on a planet that anywhere near resembles the one they have devoured. That's an even more egregious violation of rights but nobody talks about it because there can be no accountability. Like putting a bag a flaming shit on somebody's doorstep and then running. Rather keep the shit where it is now then step in it later, thank you.

127 points by jseliger 7y ago

These are all good ideas, but the ferocity of change worries me. And I'm the sort of person who thinks climate change is the single biggest policy issue facing our country (and all the other countries) and and spending big $ personally to reduce my impact. My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So big in fact that we face a generational backlash against de-carbonizing. It takes time to make big shifts like this. People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year. We have to ramp up the renewable infrastructure at the same pace we wind down the legacy infrastructure, and in a way that doesn't bankrupt entire towns and even states. Maybe it's not possible to tackle this without great pain to a lot of people. Maybe if we had a 'Pearl Harbor' type event that galvanized a super majority of americans into action and sacrifice... I'm pessimistic that we'll have that moment, that we'll change that many minds, or that we'll have the fortitude and resolve to do what must be done. But I'm glad Inslee is doing what he's doing, and working through the policies we'd need to get there, not just talking about doing "something".

yokaze 7y ago
Funny, that you say that. I actually think, policy based deprecation is the biggest possible boost the economy could get. Think CDs Vs Vinyl, VHS to DVD. Or more on point: Catalytic converters. Having to buy new stuff drives the economy, being content with "what works" throttles it (e.g. mobile devices, laptops). Sure, there might be a backlash, but it's not like there isn't any opposition now. Being to cautious (i.e. slow) bears the risk that people resist change because you are slowly (ergo constantly) changing things, and they don't see the benefit of the policy change. (Assuming that it is indeed the case) Edit: missing verb
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  To add to this, which I think is entirely correct, it took the effects of spending on arming for WW2 that finally brought the world out of the Great Depression. Unemployment went down and the economy surged. The US New Deal helped but it wasn't nearly enough. Edit: Is this controversial somehow? I thought it pretty standard and well known history.
  - graycat 7y ago
    There's an old remark: "Recession and depression are the easiest things in the world to cure -- just print money.". The cause of our recessions and depressions was suddenly too little money. That is, a lot of money was destroyed. How? When the banks, etc. got in trouble, the multiplier effect enormously reduced the money supply. Soooooo, have some new regulations on reserve ratios, etc. for banks and then print the missing money. The new regulations will keep the banks, etc. from using the newly printed money and the multiplier effect to create too much money and inflation. Many millions of people died before these ideas were accepted. How to print money? One way is for the Federal Reserve to buy bonds from the US Treasury. Then the Treasury has the money and the Federal Government can spend it, e.g., on roads, bridges, dams, etc. Another way is for the Federal Reserve to loan money to the member banks, and the banks loan the money to people who want to buy houses, cars, commercial buildings, etc. How did WWII get us out of the Depression? Once people started shooting at us, we were willing to print money for the war. But we printed about the right amount since after the war we didn't have massive inflation.
    - blackflame7000 7y ago
      The US Government started printing money as you say for government projects as early as 1930, 12 years before the war. Hoover dam for example. So are you saying it takes 12+ years for your theory to work? Also, how many millions more have died due to over-printing of money? MMT is a disaster waiting to happen because at the end of the day Credit=Trust and you can only borrow so much before you lose that trust. Trust is everything and debt is an incursion.
Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year. Or ever, perhaps. I can no longer remember where, but I recently read an article about a backlash by California Democrats against Green New Deal-type ideas. What stood out was someone saying that the idea of retraining workers for other types of jobs was offensive. If people in the oil and gas industry liked their job, then they ought to be allowed to keep it until they retired.
- steve_adams_86 7y ago
  That's a tough thing. Imagine someone was telling you that you had to change your career because people decided it's no good. What will you do? Put your life on hold and go retrain for something you never intended to train for? Possibly (probably) earn less? Potentially need to move for work? It's complicated. I think it needs to happen. The US and Canada both spend major subsidies on oil and gas, and that money would do wonders in supporting and retraining these works. However, we'd need a very good plan and very good acceptance of it amongst the work force and tax payers. This would all be incredibly expensive. People would resent the retraining because it would cost tax payers to benefit a small subset of people, while less oil production equals higher prices for... Everything. People would be very upset, both workers and citizens. It's going to be so hard to get people on the same page. I hope the disasters that push us to act aren't too awful.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    It’s already happened for almost everyone employed mining coal, because of automation. No climate change needed.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Just for perspective, coal mining employs about half as many Americans as Whole Foods. That’s one specialty grocery chain. The amount of attention given to coal miners is absurd.
ForHackernews 7y ago
This right here is why nothing will happen and we're hosed. > It takes time to make big shifts like this. We have 11 years to cut global CO2 emissions by 50%, and even that may not be enough. > Maybe it's not possible to tackle this without great pain to a lot of people. That might have been possible if we'd started in earnest 30 years ago. Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term or famine and death in the long term. I expect we'll opt for our grandchildren's generation to starve.
- derp_dee_derp 7y ago
  > Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term or famine and death in the long term. I expect we'll opt for our grandchildren's generation to starve It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Please stop using armegeddon like language to describe climate change. It doesn't help if you sound like a crazed cultist.
  - crispinb 7y ago
    > It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Only the degree of certainty of the statement is exaggerated. The content is well within any reasonable scenario-planning approach. Near-term catastrophe may not be the most likely outcome, but on all accounts it is likely enough to be the most genuinely alarming threat we've yet faced. You may not like the tone, but surely you can muster the courage to set aside your personal taste with regard to something so important?
    - derp_dee_derp 7y ago
      > You may not like the tone, but surely you can muster the courage to set aside your personal taste with regard to something so important? You sound exactly like a Jehovah's witness or a Mormon missionary.
      - deleted 7y ago
bryanlarsen 7y ago
The plan looks feasible to me. Certainly much more feasible than Kennedy's pledge to land on the moon before the end of the decade...
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Certainly much more feasible than stopping manufacturing of all non-military steel products and asking people to donate steel for manufacturing tools, weapons, and vehicles for WW2. The issue isn't that it's a huge task. The issue is that the current industries and governments are dragging their feet trying to mik every penny they can from their current dynasty.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
just_myles 7y ago
I see your point. You don't want to wallop an entire industry but at some point it kind of has to happen. "The second piece is phasing out fossil fuel production more broadly. Inslee would establish a “Presidential Commission on Energy Transition” (including the secretaries of several federal agencies) that will be “tasked with identifying and setting in motion the implementation of federal policies to phase out domestic fossil fuel production.” The commission will have a special focus on a “just transition” for fossil fuel workers and communities." My biggest concern here. Hope it is more comprehensive than this vox outline.
mikeash 7y ago
Thirty years is a long time. Think about how different the economy was in, say, 1930 compared to 1900. Or 1840 to 1870. How much fossil fuel infrastructure lasts for thirty years? We could almost do it by just using the natural replacement cycle.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> My fear is that we take a big sledgehammer to the fossil fuel industry and infrastructure, and in so doing also take a big sledgehammer to our entire economy. So big in fact that we face a generational backlash against de-carbonizing. It still seems like the best solution is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, i.e. a carbon tax which is merely refunded to everyone in the form of a fixed tax credit. Then the average person pays e.g. $5000 in carbon tax but receives a $5000 tax credit. But the person who burns a disproportionate amount of carbon pays $7000 and still only receives the $5000 credit, meanwhile someone who burns less carbon pays only $2000 and actually turns a profit after the tax credit. Then we don't need all of this command and control. People have the right incentives, so they buy electric cars and heat pumps and solar panels, and the problem solves itself. The only real thing you have to tweak is the amount of the tax/credit, to adjust the trade off between being too fast/disruptive and too slow/ineffective.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > It still seems like the best solution is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, i.e. a carbon tax which is merely refunded to everyone in the form of a fixed tax credit. A revenue neutral carbon tax means that government is dependent for funding for operations (or, if you follow MMP, “is dependent for extracting sufficient money from the economy for the current degree of inflation control”) on continued carbon emissions at the present level.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > A revenue neutral carbon tax means that government is dependent for funding for operations (or, if you follow MMP, “is dependent for extracting sufficient money from the economy for the current degree of inflation control”) on continued carbon emissions at the present level. Not if the amount of the tax credit in a given year is tied to the amount of revenue the tax generates, i.e. it remains revenue-neutral. Then it automatically phases itself out as less carbon is burned.
- cavisne 7y ago
  Revenue neutral carbon taxes are a fantasy, because they are pushed by progressive politicians, yet are deeply regressive in their impact. Inslee admits this, and simply wants to add a new tax, and refund it selectively to people who he thinks deserve the money/access to electricity, and outlaw the use cases which don't. Purely coincidentally this is the same effect as making the tax system more progressive, but actually it's all about climate change.
kevingadd 7y ago
Incrementalism is definitely safer, but it also doesn't work because every 4-8 years, global warming fans take over and unwind all the incremental improvements that have been made and kick us further down the slope towards complete disaster. Observe how in the US renewables investments and climate progress are being undone while the current political leaders are talking about bringing back coal. No amount of incremental progress will help if that stuff happens repeatedly. We have to fix it soon and fix it thoroughly so that our incremental progress doesn't just get undone in 4-8 years while the rest of the world is still sorting out their part of the climate crisis.

maximente 7y ago

unfortunately Inslee doesn't seem to have the fortitude to defy the DNC's ban on "outside" (uncontrolled?) climate debates. and for good pragmatic reason, imo: the DNC could probably ruin his future political career. https://www.gq.com/story/dnc-jay-inslee-climate-change https://www.gq.com/story/dnc-jay-inslee-climate-change

mogadsheu 7y ago

Inslee’s plan sounds like a door in the face technique to rile up extremist support. Who wants the nation to be heavily reliant on imports while the world develops alternatives? Besides our friends the Russians, Saudis, Iranians, and Venezuelans of course. It’s possible but entirely impractical, in the same way that removing all plastic from one’s household is possible.

newswriter99 7y ago

Change the word "plan" with "dream" and the article looks a lot less like a one-sided editorial. Articles like this start off from the angle of "we should do this" and in my opinion that's a BS way to frame a news story. Fossil fuels, especially natgas, serve a very specific function and the idea of putting the US at a disadvantage just so we can pat ourselves on the back as the rest of the world beats us in energy is ludicrous.

phil248 7y ago
The rest of the world is already beating us on energy. We are winning a game that is already over. We can keep patting ourselves on the back for generating and using so many fossil fuels so very well, or we can admit that a new game has started and get our asses on the field to compete.
- newswriter99 7y ago
  >The rest of the world is already beating us on energy. [citation needed] We literally usurped control from OPEC thanks to fracking technology, which almost no one else in the world is using. EDIT: And let's mention our LNG exports while we're at it: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm I know HN is a mature forum where insults aren't conductive to discussion, but pull your head out of your ass.
hanniabu 7y ago
Seems like the whole world is getting ahead of the US with all this feet dragging. That's the real disadvantage. Every major issue the country faces, the answer is "well it's a lot easier to just sweep this under the rug because I have an election coming up and gives I can upset so let's just not do anything about this". And now every corner of the US is crumbling, from healthcare to infrastructure.

lostmymind66 7y ago

The problem is that there is no real solution. All of these plans involve ripping fossil fuel dependency out by its roots and just hoping that we have something to replace it. The end result will be skyrocketing prices that only the wealthy can afford and a broken economy. I can't imagine any politician even thinking about sponsoring this as the devastation will be linked to them by their political rivals for many years to come. It's only being used as a talking point right now to get votes. How are we going to replace gasoline based cars in the US, when there is no infrastructure setup? We should concentrate on this first.

at-fates-hands 7y ago

Just saw an episode of American Pickers where they at some guys farm going through all of his 1920's era car collection. There was a little side part where they talked about how common electric cars were in the late 1880's and early 1900's before Henry Ford and the discovery of Texas oil. Made me think about where we could be if we had not made the wholesale switch to gas powered cars and instead focused on building a more cost effective electric car.

OldHand2018 7y ago
> before Henry Ford and the discovery of Texas oil There is a book called Internal Combustion which claims that Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were working together on an electric car but that in 1914 Edison's battery facility was destroyed in a massive blaze of very suspicious origin. With this setback and the beginning of WWI, the electric car was lost. You can read that book and make your own conclusions, of course :)
megaremote 7y ago
Imagine the wonderful world we could be living in if someone had banned personal cars? Instead of roads everywhere we would have parks on instead, places for kids and adults to exist. Instead of urban sprawl we could have had walk able and cyclable cities, with a lot less pollution. Instead of 40,000 dead every year in the US we could have them living. Instead of 100,000s seriously injured, we could close down hospitals. Etc...

godelski 7y ago

I want clean energy as much as the next guy, probably more (it's one of my top concerns). But plans like this are extremely naive. I agree, we need to get the of fossil fuels as fast as possible. But very few articles like this mention what we'd replace it with. Wind, solar, and hydro are all fantastic, but hydro is the only one that can produce constant output. It is also difficult to throttle the other two and bring up demands for surge. There's a big reason fossil fuels are still around and it isn't just politicians lining their pockets (not denying this is happening) and big oil conspiracies. The fact of the matter is we don't have the technology to replace it. Batteries aren't just there yet. Can we wait for them and hope? I'm not convinced considering we needed to start building things decades ago. I'm pro nuclear because of this, because it's the only current technology that can be built anywhere (yes, this is a major issue) and can throttle output. But people are scared of it. It deserves the fear, but what should be scarier is it's basically the safest form of energy we have. But it is also expensive and we can't just pretend that we'll get economies of scale right away. So what do we do? I think we push out fossil fuels as fast as possible. We heavily invest in battery tech. We minorly relax nuclear regulations to allow us to build newer generation reactors that are safer and hopefully cheaper. We go harder at researching fusion. And most importantly, we dump a lot into sequestration research. I think this is a safe bet, but it is still a bet. It's not a fool proof plan but it diversifies the portfolio and reduces risk of failure. But it'll be costly. Definitely not as expensive as a mass extinction event, but costly. And it is hard to get people to realize costs from an existential crisis. I mean look at the article. When we talk about climate we still aren't listening to the scientists and are talking past one another. So what do we do?

phil248 7y ago
Thermal solar can produce constant output. As can any system with sufficient storage capacity, be it battery or otherwise. It seems like most critiques of alternate energy come from a place of ignorance about alternative energy. No offense, it's just frustrating to hear people say "I care so much!" and then they don't even understand the basic landscape about which they claim to be so deeply concerned. It also seems to be the one area of technology where people suddenly lose all capacity to understand that technology changes, that the solutions we have today are not the solutions we will have tomorrow, and more investment always leads to more solutions. So many prefer to throw their arms up and say "It's impossible! Sometimes the wind doesn't blow so we're doomed!"

cassbot 7y ago

I was super happy to see this article and excitedly opened up the HN comments. Really disappointed by these comments. What is unscientific or extreme about Inslee's position? Ending fossil fuel subsidies does not mean fossil fuels are disappearing overnight. It means that the prices on fossil fuel derivatives will reflect their true prices, and consumers and the free market will adjust their consumption accordingly. Don't feel sorry for the status quo. It has plenty of momentum, lobbyists, and big money to keep going the way it's going. Inslee proposes to shift government incentives to what we wish to see more of. The fact that the technology does not exist now, is an even STRONGER reason to provide government incentives and deadlines for R&D. How we get on the moon in a decade? A leader shared a vision. People had the courage to believe and make it happen. We should EXPECT positive change and big vision from our leaders. Don't give up on the system! “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any.” ― Alice Walker

ianai 7y ago
Agreed on probably all points. Though I’m reasonably convinced that the technology does exist. On price, oil prices have a significant, direct, and negative effect on market productivity. We could actually put ourselves into a depression by raising prices highly. This is both a reason to get ourselves off fossil fuels ASAP and a hurdle to doing so. Politically, possibly the strongest and quickest change to the political system in the US would be passing the side stepping of the electoral college system across the states. It’s already over half way there. The House is more responsive to the democratic vote than the senate. The electoral college is the undemocratic influence on the President. So that change would make the 2/3rds of the federal government more democratic than current.
hudibras 7y ago
My feelings exactly. Depressing to see so many smart people here on HN saying "We need to do something about climate change!" But then when a presidential candidate rolls out an ambitious, comprehensive, soup-to-nuts proposal that fixes the problem, they say "No, not like that!"

lacker 7y ago

Since the US only accounts for about 15% of global CO2 emission, even if through some political miracle all of this plan came to pass, it wouldn't slow down global warming very much. We need solutions that will actually scale to be adopted by the whole planet. That means we need to make wind and solar cheaper, or possibly figure out how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Any solution that costs a whole lot of money and involves no technological innovation isn't going to work.

alexandercrohde 7y ago
>> Any solution that costs a whole lot of money and involves no technological innovation isn't going to work. A carbon-fee would put a market incentive for companies to invent technological solutions.
fooblitzky 7y ago
Wow this is the first time I've seen this argument used for the USA. "Only" 15% of global emissions - out of 195 countries. It's still the world's second biggest emitter - I think it would slow down global warming a lot if the US cut emissions. Usually this argument is trotted out in Australia, which is responsible for 1% of global emissions.
johnwalker 7y ago
We need both! In the meantime, I like the idea of ending subsidies for fossil fuels since it incentivizes building a moonshot technology that everyone can adopt, and curbing our reliance on them so that we have time to build better technology.
jwr 7y ago
See, that's the problem, right there: everybody says the same thing. "We are only responsible for a small part, so let's do nothing". So we do nothing.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fooblitzky 7y ago

The UN should apply sanctions to the USA equal to the amount of subsidies they are paying to fossil fuels companies.

jwr 7y ago
I am hoping for something which might have similar effects: that the EU will get its act together first and implement a carbon taxation scheme, imposing tariffs on imports from countries that do not implement a carbon tax. The US, unfortunately, seems to be in denial of the climate crisis. I wonder if in 30 years we will be putting todays climate deniers in courts (like the Nuremberg trials) for crimes against humanity.
nichos 7y ago
The UNs largest source of funding comes from the United States, more than the next 2 countries combined. China is a bigger problem anyway.
- fooblitzky 7y ago
  It doesn't have to be just the US - the sanctions can be against any country which continues to subsidize fossil fuels, equal to the amount of their subsidies.
briandear 7y ago
The US could simply stop paying for much of the UN budget.

MR4D 7y ago

There is a reason that candidates likes this are all at the margin - they never consider the second order effects of their ideas. While his goal may be laudable, it would harm way more people than it would help. Let’s look at a couple simple things that getting rid of oil production would impact. (and keep in mind I’m keeping this short because typing on a mobile device sucks) 1 - price of electricity would go up (due to fuel costs) 2 - price of concrete would go up (due to both carbon usage and energy usage) 3 - price of steel would go up (probably way up due to the energy Use) 4 - price of plastic would go up (because of higher material cost) Other third-order effects would happen too: 5 - price of food would go up (because of higher fuel and material cost) 6 - housing costs would rise (due to energy costs and things like PVC which make up huge portions of any modern plumbing system) 7 - inflation would rise (due to energy, food, and materials price increases) And it just gets worse, hitting those on a budget or low income especially hard. Again, the ideas may be laudable, but changes like this take decades - like 5+ decades, not just one or two.

alexandercrohde 7y ago
I think you have this all wrong. Those prices going up is necessary and good. It creates a huge market pressure against all activities (including stuff like food sources) that produce a lot of carbon. If it damages our atmosphere to create a steel, then that factor NEEDS to be accounted for and COMPENSATED for at steel creation. Fortunately, in addition to driving down the appeal of high-pollution foods/materials, it'll also stimulate the market for green solutions by pumping huge financial incentives in. Does this mean life is harder for the poor? Yes. That's why proposal like this or green-new-deal often have a plan for that too.
mikeash 7y ago
We are already paying those higher prices. We’re just paying a lot of it in economically inefficient ways, though damage to the ecosystem and to people’s health. Getting people to pay for them with money would be better.
- MR4D 7y ago
  I agree, but the timescale has to be over decades. People don’t adjust that quickly.

mythrwy 7y ago

If you break the economy badly enough the ability to effectively police (polluters or anything else) goes down with it.

pteredactyl 7y ago

Fossil fuel will be phased out when economically rational. Look at what natural gas did to carbon emissions in the US [0] Some Gov intervention may accelerate the change. But overall I’m weary of their efforts. [0] “Natural gas, which emits about half the amount of CO2 as coal, is being used more extensively due to its lower price and is displacing coal-fired generation...” https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/ https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/

alexandercrohde 7y ago
Uh... it's already economically rational... It's called a "negative externality" and the economic consensus is that the correct way to make a market efficiently operate is by applying a tax on those who generate "negative externalities" (i.e. damage the world around them) that can offset the damage. This is very basic and undisputed economics, so I'm not sure why you're waiving that phrase around.
- pteredactyl 7y ago
  A tax would have to be enforced globally to be effective. Are you advocating for an International tax collector? To add to that, you could be the arbiter of “negative externalities” since you have such a good handle on theoretical economics. You could then use your authority to tax and save the world. Just want to say I’m very thankful you are here to share your intelligence via undisputed and very basic facts. I didn’t know reality was so black and white until you showed up. Thank you!
  - alexandercrohde 7y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBw6KvU51BE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBw6KvU51BE

adamzk 7y ago

I would go further and lower the voting age to 16 and not let anybody over 60 vote. Call it undemocratic, call it a violation of rights but theyre not going to be here when shit hits the fan and they're going to vote accordingly and in doing so they will prevent anybody under 18 from making it to their age on a planet that anywhere near resembles the one they have devoured. That's an even more egregious violation of rights but nobody talks about it because there can be no accountability. Like putting a bag a flaming shit on somebody's doorstep and then running. Rather keep the shit where it is now then step in it later, thank you.