4 ms·
Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that g
by ars 5y ago
Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that goal.
This has second order effects: Republicans will say if your new energy source is cheaper, people will automatically use it, no need for government to do anything. While Democrats want the government to mandate it, because that's the only way it will work if it's more expensive.
You might also consider if I've reversed 1st order and 2nd order here, that's up to you to decide.
- danans 5y ago> Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that goal. Fossil fuels are only less expensive when you ignore the real health and climate change costs, which is precisely what politicians aligned with fossil fuel interests do on both sides of the political aisle.
- lazide 5y agoNear as I can tell, at least right now the real health and climate costs are hard to quantity and very diffuse across a huge number of people. Also prone to exaggeration or undercounting. Price at the pump/wellhead is easy, and impossible to ignore.
- stonogo 5y agoThis comparison completely ignores a glaring counterpoint: corn. It's not the Democrats shoving through corn subsidies, then cramming ethanol requirements into the system. It's not Republicans either. It's universally bipartisan, despite ethanol being a terrible fuel source.
- sokoloff 5y agoOne small thing corn-sourced ethanol has going for it is that it’s using current carbon rather than ancient carbon.
- adrianN 5y agoAFAIK making the ethanol involves more fossil fuel use than you save by burning the ethanol instead of using petrol directly.
- sokoloff 5y agoBottom of page 2 suggests that’s not the case: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/news/archives/documents/Myths_and_Facts.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/news/archives/do... As someone who has changed or disassembled and cleaned many a carb from crappy ethanol-polluted gasoline, I’m not pro-ethanol, but I think there’s a slice of science in favor of it on lifecycle emissions basis.