3 ms·

The big difference is that the U.S. economic system was evidently not dependent on slavery to continue. From 1850 to 1870, U.S. cotton production almost doubled

The big difference is that the U.S. economic system was evidently not dependent on slavery to continue. From 1850 to 1870, U.S. cotton production almost doubled, not withstanding the Civil War and emancipation. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/FRB/pages/1920-1924/26396_1920-1924.pdf https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/FRB/pa... Meanwhile, "greening" electricity use will have extremely negative impacts to many people living right now. Look what happened in DK as they shut down nuke plants and then had the Ukraine war interrupt gas supplies. And this is in one of the richest countries in the world! https://www.statista.com/statistics/1267541/germany-monthly-wholesale-electricity-price/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1267541/germany-monthly-...

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I would argue you'd see the exact same thing, and this is another reason it's a great parallel, see this summary from 2017: https://carbontracker.org/reports/no-country-for-coal-gen-below-2c-and-regulatory-risk-for-us-coal-power-owners/ https://carbontracker.org/reports/no-country-for-coal-gen-be... > provide a tool for investors who have exposure to US coal power to make their portfolio compliant with the Paris Agreement in an economically rational way; > detail how an outdated regulatory framework is one of the only reasons why uncompetitive coal power continues to operate in the US; and > highlight how phasing-out coal power could save US citizens money and make the US economy more competitive > Given the current political backdrop, the assumptions underpinning our analysis are deeply conservative: no Clean Power Plan (CPP) or carbon prices and only well established environmental regulations, originally drafted in 1970s. Plus, you're talking about nuclear being replaced with fossil fuels, which is the exact opposite of what would happen if we abolished subsidising fossil fuels. On slavery, people still argue that slavery made the US rich, or enabled the Industrial Revolution or various other contrarian "thing you thought was bad was actually good" takes, but I believe the standard view is that, while it might have helped get things going, it was eventually, at the time of the civil war, a net negative, even not accounting for costs of the war, and that afterwards the economy grew faster without that deadweight. (The book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Slavery covers this.) I'm sure there were people arguing at the time of abolition that it was a necessary evil too though: > Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. Rice would cease being profitable. > Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob's "rule of terror" during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I would argue you'd see the exact same thing, and this is another reason it's a great parallel, see this summary from 2017: https://carbontracker.org/reports/no-country-for-coal-gen-below-2c-and-regulatory-risk-for-us-coal-power-owners/ https://carbontracker.org/reports/no-country-for-coal-gen-be... > provide a tool for investors who have exposure to US coal power to make their portfolio compliant with the Paris Agreement in an economically rational way; > detail how an outdated regulatory framework is one of the only reasons why uncompetitive coal power continues to operate in the US; and > highlight how phasing-out coal power could save US citizens money and make the US economy more competitive > Given the current political backdrop, the assumptions underpinning our analysis are deeply conservative: no Clean Power Plan (CPP) or carbon prices and only well established environmental regulations, originally drafted in 1970s. Plus, you're talking about nuclear being replaced with fossil fuels, which is the exact opposite of what would happen if we abolished subsidising fossil fuels. On slavery, people still argue that slavery made the US rich, or enabled the Industrial Revolution or various other contrarian "thing you thought was bad was actually good" takes, but I believe the standard view is that, while it might have helped get things going, it was eventually, at the time of the civil war, a net negative, even not accounting for costs of the war, and that afterwards the economy grew faster without that deadweight. (The book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Slavery covers this.) I'm sure there were people arguing at the time of abolition that it was a necessary evil too though: > Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. Rice would cease being profitable. > Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob's "rule of terror" during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society.