4 ms·

What could Trump do in that respect? Bring back coal? Coal isn't coming back. The economics aren't there short of literally paying for the burning of coal. And

What could Trump do in that respect? Bring back coal? Coal isn't coming back. The economics aren't there short of literally paying for the burning of coal. And while Trump seems to lean into the AGW deniers, he does seem to at least respect reducing the classic "silent spring" sorts of pollution that obviously dirty air and water. US oil production is the highest in the world, the highest in its history, and is so maxed out that there are loads of drilling rights that aren't even being exercised as oil companies all realized that it was pyrrhic with current low oil prices. On the climate position I don't think things can go back. Wind, solar and evolving nuclear just make it a silly thing to do.

thrance 2y ago
He can, and has basically promised to massively subsidize fracking. Fracking is still not profitable, never has been, probably never will be. It's existence is purely political.
- ethagnawl 2y ago
  This is intriguing and I've actually never heard this take. (Not disagreeing, to be clear.) My laymen's understanding is that domestic natural gas production has gone way up in this century and I lazily assumed this was why.
  - thrance 2y ago
    Yes, there is strategic value in being able to extract fossil fuels domestically, and fracking allows this, only at great economic (and environmental) cost.
- causal 2y ago
  Source? Searching on this I'm only finding evidence that fracking has been extremely lucrative
echoangle 2y ago
Wasn’t a large part of his platform „drill baby drill“? If he’s lowering cost of fossil fuels, guess what will happen to consumption.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  That promise played upon the listener thinking the US had somehow suppressed oil production. In reality oil/gas production has gone wild, now with a large surplus over domestic consumption. There are huge numbers of rights that have been granted but not exercised because the world is so awash in oil that the price makes most non-conventional fields unprofitable. There just isn't anything to really be done there.
  - swasheck 2y ago
    “ That promise played upon the listener thinking the US had somehow … “ this is the summary of trumps entire campaign platform. i’m honestly not even sure he expressed a concrete policy on anything. he said he wants even more aggressive tariffs and will start deportation on day 1 (and was relatively nonchalant about some “legal” immigrants being caught up with “illegal” ones). cut dei. there’s honestly no plan or policy, just a nebulous wish list that appeals to the base impulses of humanity. the only real expectation that i have is that justices thomas and alito will retire early in his term to allow him to appoint new ones early enough to not allow democrats to stall like mcconnell did.
- pc86 2y ago
  The same thing that happens when you subsidize EVs - we just use more. If you lower the cost of consumption, consumption goes up. If you lower the cost of alternative means of consumption, total consumption still goes up. It goes up either way, you might as well have the source be here instead of from a foreign adversary.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    Maybe the real solution would be to move to renewable energy sources instead of making fossil fuels cheaper.
kromokromo 2y ago
Opening up coal mines just to bring back jobs in the rust belt does not make any sense. Start mining silicon and other minerals used in solar, batteries and chips instead. It makes a lot more sense even though the initial investment is higher.
adrianmonk 2y ago
He could take away government subsidies and incentives for clean energy production. And subsidies for converting consumption to electricity (like EVs, heat pump furnaces, water heaters, and stoves). He could target research into clean energy technology, ending government initiatives and taking away research grants. He could remove regulations on energy efficiency. He could put giant tariffs on anything made in China that is used in clean energy production (like solar panels, batteries, and electronics). He could make it harder to get approvals to install clean energy production, siding with NIMBYs who oppose solar, wind, and battery projects. He could cut federal funding for public transit. I don't know how much of that he would actually do, but in the past he has expressed support for a lot of it. So I think he will try to do some of it. It's possible we have already reached a tipping point where the total cost of clean energy production and consumption is cheaper even without all of these subsidies and so on. If so, then the transition might continue anyway. But if so, I think it will still be a slower transition.

thrance 2y ago

He can, and has basically promised to massively subsidize fracking. Fracking is still not profitable, never has been, probably never will be. It's existence is purely political.

ethagnawl 2y ago
This is intriguing and I've actually never heard this take. (Not disagreeing, to be clear.) My laymen's understanding is that domestic natural gas production has gone way up in this century and I lazily assumed this was why.
- thrance 2y ago
  Yes, there is strategic value in being able to extract fossil fuels domestically, and fracking allows this, only at great economic (and environmental) cost.
causal 2y ago
Source? Searching on this I'm only finding evidence that fracking has been extremely lucrative

echoangle 2y ago

Wasn’t a large part of his platform „drill baby drill“? If he’s lowering cost of fossil fuels, guess what will happen to consumption.

llm_nerd 2y ago
That promise played upon the listener thinking the US had somehow suppressed oil production. In reality oil/gas production has gone wild, now with a large surplus over domestic consumption. There are huge numbers of rights that have been granted but not exercised because the world is so awash in oil that the price makes most non-conventional fields unprofitable. There just isn't anything to really be done there.
- swasheck 2y ago
  “ That promise played upon the listener thinking the US had somehow … “ this is the summary of trumps entire campaign platform. i’m honestly not even sure he expressed a concrete policy on anything. he said he wants even more aggressive tariffs and will start deportation on day 1 (and was relatively nonchalant about some “legal” immigrants being caught up with “illegal” ones). cut dei. there’s honestly no plan or policy, just a nebulous wish list that appeals to the base impulses of humanity. the only real expectation that i have is that justices thomas and alito will retire early in his term to allow him to appoint new ones early enough to not allow democrats to stall like mcconnell did.
pc86 2y ago
The same thing that happens when you subsidize EVs - we just use more. If you lower the cost of consumption, consumption goes up. If you lower the cost of alternative means of consumption, total consumption still goes up. It goes up either way, you might as well have the source be here instead of from a foreign adversary.
- echoangle 2y ago
  Maybe the real solution would be to move to renewable energy sources instead of making fossil fuels cheaper.

kromokromo 2y ago

Opening up coal mines just to bring back jobs in the rust belt does not make any sense. Start mining silicon and other minerals used in solar, batteries and chips instead. It makes a lot more sense even though the initial investment is higher.

adrianmonk 2y ago

He could take away government subsidies and incentives for clean energy production. And subsidies for converting consumption to electricity (like EVs, heat pump furnaces, water heaters, and stoves). He could target research into clean energy technology, ending government initiatives and taking away research grants. He could remove regulations on energy efficiency. He could put giant tariffs on anything made in China that is used in clean energy production (like solar panels, batteries, and electronics). He could make it harder to get approvals to install clean energy production, siding with NIMBYs who oppose solar, wind, and battery projects. He could cut federal funding for public transit. I don't know how much of that he would actually do, but in the past he has expressed support for a lot of it. So I think he will try to do some of it. It's possible we have already reached a tipping point where the total cost of clean energy production and consumption is cheaper even without all of these subsidies and so on. If so, then the transition might continue anyway. But if so, I think it will still be a slower transition.