3 ms·

Not everything runs on electricity today. You can’t just snap your fingers and replace millions of cars, stoves, boilers, etc

NewJazz 2y ago
You can stop selling new ones and invest in alternatives...
ben_w 2y ago
It would be a lot easier to replace the cars with electric ones if not for those tariffs on the biggest manufacturers of electric cars.
eru 2y ago
> You can’t just snap your fingers and replace millions of cars, [...] The Chinese are trying to help, but Americans like tariffs more than they hate climate change. (At least that's the preference that their political system expresses.)
- methodical 2y ago
  Help is an interesting word choice for what is essentially undercutting our entire domestic automotive manufacturers and ensuring, on a pure cost front, that the majority of Americans purchase and rely on maintenance for a product produced in China. Doing so would have major negative consequences for our own strategic interests, hence why there has been such a massive tariff on it for several years now. China isn't being altruistic when they're attempting to sell us their much more affordable EVs. It's not a uniquely US perspective on the threat of Chinese EVs either, as the EU also has lesser but still non-trivial tariffs on Chinese EV brands.
  - FooBarWidget 2y ago
    Well, isn't it a good thing that they can help fight climate change without being altruistic? The entire western capitalist model is based on the premise that capitalism is good because people can help improve society through selfish means. Altruism doesn't scale. It's best when incentives are aligned. The problem isn't with keeping Chinese cars out through tariffs. It's keeping them out, and at the same time not stimulating domestic green energy development enough. Why should the energy transition be bottlenecked by incumbent interests' profit margins?
    - eru 2y ago
      > Well, isn't it a good thing that they can help fight climate change without being altruistic? The entire western capitalist model is based on the premise that capitalism is good because people can help improve society through selfish means. Altruism doesn't scale. It's best when incentives are aligned. Yes, that's why you should let people buy cheap Chinese goods. > The problem isn't with keeping Chinese cars out through tariffs. It's keeping them out, and at the same time not stimulating domestic green energy development enough. Didn't you just say capitalism was good, and now you argue the opposite?
      - FooBarWidget 2y ago
        > Didn't you just say capitalism was good No. I was criticizing the notion that not being "altruistic" is always bad. That is not the same as saying selfishness/capitalism is always good.
        eru 2y ago
        Well, the Chinese tax payers altruistically subsidise western consumers.
        FooBarWidget 2y ago
        Really no idea what you're getting at. It's really simple and not some nefarious scheme. The Chinese government wants to be energy-independent so they don't have to import foreign oil and gas. Developing domestic green energy happens to align with fighting climate change, as well as transitioning the economy to a high-tech based one in order to escape the middle income trap. The incentives with the private sector are also aligned because this development is profitable. So they do it, by whatever means possible. They sell some cars to Europe and North America, but the amount is negligible compared to what they sell domestically, and still much smaller than what they sell to ASEAN and the Middle East. It's that simple. This isn't some grand plan to destroy foreign car manufacturers. If foreign car manufacturers get destroyed then that's by accident, as a result of them not staying competitive enough, not because that was the end goal from the start. Of course it's in western governments' and manufacturers' rights to not accept this fate. But the most productive way to avoid that fate is by increasing their own competitiveness and by moving faster themselves, not closing themselves off while at the same time staying lazy about the energy transition. That's just rent collection.
  - rdm_blackhole 2y ago
    If the US and the EU had invested in EVs 15 years ago like China did instead of scrambling to do so in the last 5, then China would not have the advantage it has now on the other carmakers. Also if the governments want people to move away from ICE cars, then maybe they should stop putting tariffs on cars coming from China. At some point, you need to make a decision and stick with it. The way I see it as a consumer in the EU is that the EU is simultaneously saying we need to transition to a lower carbon economy as quickly as possible but then increases the price of goods that could be used in this transition. Make it make sense. Is it my fault that the carmakers in the EU failed to invest EV tech? So why am I being asked as a consumer to subsidize the legacy carmakers who were very happy to rake in billions of euros in the last 10 years while selling Diesel engines all the while knowing the the Chinese EVs were just around the corner?
  - eru 2y ago
    You say it like 'undercutting' is a bad thing. If consumers have to pay less, that's a Good Thing.
    - methodical 2y ago
      Not when the domestic companies which manufacture the same product wither as a result. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in defensive national economic policy as a blanket protection we should do to protect all industries, but in special circumstances such as this one where losing all of our electric vehicle production capability and specialization is at play, I think it certainly is in our strategic interest to avoid that from happening.
      - eru 2y ago
        > Not when the domestic companies which manufacture the same product wither as a result. That's not how economics works.
        methodical 2y ago
        A company being unable to compete with another one on price will result in a drop in revenue, as consumers purchase the product with the cheaper price. Revenue going down is bad for a business. How exactly is any of what I've just stated wrong? How exactly is another company selling a similar product at a much lower price point good for the company? Perplexing position that somehow introducing a much cheaper product into the market from company B is good for company A.
        eru 2y ago
        > How exactly is another company selling a similar product at a much lower price point good for the company? It's good for the economy. And it's good for other companies, that you haven't mentioned. There's more than two companies in the market.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Probably the US should mandate (by edict or incentive) its own industry to build EVs rather than importing a strategic asset from a strategic competitor.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    They did. But the local political dysfunction meant they ended up making Elon Musk the richest man in the world and he's now trying to take over the government in cahoots with someone who is fighting a culture war against EVs, while only getting to 10% EV sales. China spent similar amounts and has a vibrant, world leading EV marketplace, supplied by their vibrant, world leading battery industry, and 50% EV penetration domestically and export plans that terrify the countries that chose not to follow this path.
  - eru 2y ago
    Almost anything can be painted as a strategic assets..
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      Yes, but in car-centric US it's not too far-fetched to paint cars as a strategic asset. But maybe my thinking is too simplistic?
      - NewJazz 2y ago
        What is strategic about a fleet of passenger vehicles? If anything our car dependent cities are more of a liability than an asset.
        actionfromafar 2y ago
        If there is a trade war and you can neither import cars, nor produce them anymore, you are in a pickle.
        2y ago
- briandear 2y ago
  Ever been to China? An environmental disaster.
  - eru 2y ago
    The tariffs don't help with that.
spiderfarmer 2y ago
Nuclear plants take at least 10 years to be build. During that time millions of cars, stoves and boilers can be replaced. Look at Europe, their natural gas usage peaked in 2010.
- AlchemistCamp 2y ago
  > Nuclear plants take at least 10 years to be build. False. Some are built in under 5 years and many are currently being built on those timelines: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-20/china-approves-record-11-new-nuclear-power-reactors https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-20/china-app...
  - spiderfarmer 2y ago
    Well, your 28th reactor will probably be built faster than your first in many years. And how long did it take to get the permits? How long will that take in the US? I highly doubt any new reactor (that's not already in the planning phase) will come online in the US within the next 10 years.
    - AlchemistCamp 2y ago
      > "I highly doubt any new reactor (that's not already in the planning phase) will come online in the US within the next 10 years." That's a reasonable prediction. The US has essentially regulated new nuclear power plants out of existence over the past generation. That doesn't mean that there's anything about the technology that means it takes a decade to build, though. It's just a policy failure.
herbst 2y ago
Gas boilers and stoves aren't common anywhere else in the modern world.
woile 2y ago
Who said snap your fingers? we are talking about investment. The US already has enough oil to last until all cars are replaced if that's your worry. The real problem is allowing oil companies to grow even further, putting the public's health and climate at even more risk. The logical (even liberal if you think on $$ terms) choice is to invest in renewable.

NewJazz 2y ago

You can stop selling new ones and invest in alternatives...

ben_w 2y ago

It would be a lot easier to replace the cars with electric ones if not for those tariffs on the biggest manufacturers of electric cars.

eru 2y ago

> You can’t just snap your fingers and replace millions of cars, [...] The Chinese are trying to help, but Americans like tariffs more than they hate climate change. (At least that's the preference that their political system expresses.)

methodical 2y ago
Help is an interesting word choice for what is essentially undercutting our entire domestic automotive manufacturers and ensuring, on a pure cost front, that the majority of Americans purchase and rely on maintenance for a product produced in China. Doing so would have major negative consequences for our own strategic interests, hence why there has been such a massive tariff on it for several years now. China isn't being altruistic when they're attempting to sell us their much more affordable EVs. It's not a uniquely US perspective on the threat of Chinese EVs either, as the EU also has lesser but still non-trivial tariffs on Chinese EV brands.
- FooBarWidget 2y ago
  Well, isn't it a good thing that they can help fight climate change without being altruistic? The entire western capitalist model is based on the premise that capitalism is good because people can help improve society through selfish means. Altruism doesn't scale. It's best when incentives are aligned. The problem isn't with keeping Chinese cars out through tariffs. It's keeping them out, and at the same time not stimulating domestic green energy development enough. Why should the energy transition be bottlenecked by incumbent interests' profit margins?
  - eru 2y ago
    > Well, isn't it a good thing that they can help fight climate change without being altruistic? The entire western capitalist model is based on the premise that capitalism is good because people can help improve society through selfish means. Altruism doesn't scale. It's best when incentives are aligned. Yes, that's why you should let people buy cheap Chinese goods. > The problem isn't with keeping Chinese cars out through tariffs. It's keeping them out, and at the same time not stimulating domestic green energy development enough. Didn't you just say capitalism was good, and now you argue the opposite?
    - FooBarWidget 2y ago
      > Didn't you just say capitalism was good No. I was criticizing the notion that not being "altruistic" is always bad. That is not the same as saying selfishness/capitalism is always good.
      - eru 2y ago
        Well, the Chinese tax payers altruistically subsidise western consumers.
        FooBarWidget 2y ago
        Really no idea what you're getting at. It's really simple and not some nefarious scheme. The Chinese government wants to be energy-independent so they don't have to import foreign oil and gas. Developing domestic green energy happens to align with fighting climate change, as well as transitioning the economy to a high-tech based one in order to escape the middle income trap. The incentives with the private sector are also aligned because this development is profitable. So they do it, by whatever means possible. They sell some cars to Europe and North America, but the amount is negligible compared to what they sell domestically, and still much smaller than what they sell to ASEAN and the Middle East. It's that simple. This isn't some grand plan to destroy foreign car manufacturers. If foreign car manufacturers get destroyed then that's by accident, as a result of them not staying competitive enough, not because that was the end goal from the start. Of course it's in western governments' and manufacturers' rights to not accept this fate. But the most productive way to avoid that fate is by increasing their own competitiveness and by moving faster themselves, not closing themselves off while at the same time staying lazy about the energy transition. That's just rent collection.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  If the US and the EU had invested in EVs 15 years ago like China did instead of scrambling to do so in the last 5, then China would not have the advantage it has now on the other carmakers. Also if the governments want people to move away from ICE cars, then maybe they should stop putting tariffs on cars coming from China. At some point, you need to make a decision and stick with it. The way I see it as a consumer in the EU is that the EU is simultaneously saying we need to transition to a lower carbon economy as quickly as possible but then increases the price of goods that could be used in this transition. Make it make sense. Is it my fault that the carmakers in the EU failed to invest EV tech? So why am I being asked as a consumer to subsidize the legacy carmakers who were very happy to rake in billions of euros in the last 10 years while selling Diesel engines all the while knowing the the Chinese EVs were just around the corner?
- eru 2y ago
  You say it like 'undercutting' is a bad thing. If consumers have to pay less, that's a Good Thing.
  - methodical 2y ago
    Not when the domestic companies which manufacture the same product wither as a result. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in defensive national economic policy as a blanket protection we should do to protect all industries, but in special circumstances such as this one where losing all of our electric vehicle production capability and specialization is at play, I think it certainly is in our strategic interest to avoid that from happening.
    - eru 2y ago
      > Not when the domestic companies which manufacture the same product wither as a result. That's not how economics works.
      - methodical 2y ago
        A company being unable to compete with another one on price will result in a drop in revenue, as consumers purchase the product with the cheaper price. Revenue going down is bad for a business. How exactly is any of what I've just stated wrong? How exactly is another company selling a similar product at a much lower price point good for the company? Perplexing position that somehow introducing a much cheaper product into the market from company B is good for company A.
        eru 2y ago
        > How exactly is another company selling a similar product at a much lower price point good for the company? It's good for the economy. And it's good for other companies, that you haven't mentioned. There's more than two companies in the market.
actionfromafar 2y ago
Probably the US should mandate (by edict or incentive) its own industry to build EVs rather than importing a strategic asset from a strategic competitor.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  They did. But the local political dysfunction meant they ended up making Elon Musk the richest man in the world and he's now trying to take over the government in cahoots with someone who is fighting a culture war against EVs, while only getting to 10% EV sales. China spent similar amounts and has a vibrant, world leading EV marketplace, supplied by their vibrant, world leading battery industry, and 50% EV penetration domestically and export plans that terrify the countries that chose not to follow this path.
- eru 2y ago
  Almost anything can be painted as a strategic assets..
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Yes, but in car-centric US it's not too far-fetched to paint cars as a strategic asset. But maybe my thinking is too simplistic?
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      What is strategic about a fleet of passenger vehicles? If anything our car dependent cities are more of a liability than an asset.
      - actionfromafar 2y ago
        If there is a trade war and you can neither import cars, nor produce them anymore, you are in a pickle.
        2y ago
briandear 2y ago
Ever been to China? An environmental disaster.
- eru 2y ago
  The tariffs don't help with that.

spiderfarmer 2y ago

Nuclear plants take at least 10 years to be build. During that time millions of cars, stoves and boilers can be replaced. Look at Europe, their natural gas usage peaked in 2010.

AlchemistCamp 2y ago
> Nuclear plants take at least 10 years to be build. False. Some are built in under 5 years and many are currently being built on those timelines: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-20/china-approves-record-11-new-nuclear-power-reactors https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-20/china-app...
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  Well, your 28th reactor will probably be built faster than your first in many years. And how long did it take to get the permits? How long will that take in the US? I highly doubt any new reactor (that's not already in the planning phase) will come online in the US within the next 10 years.
  - AlchemistCamp 2y ago
    > "I highly doubt any new reactor (that's not already in the planning phase) will come online in the US within the next 10 years." That's a reasonable prediction. The US has essentially regulated new nuclear power plants out of existence over the past generation. That doesn't mean that there's anything about the technology that means it takes a decade to build, though. It's just a policy failure.

herbst 2y ago

Gas boilers and stoves aren't common anywhere else in the modern world.

woile 2y ago

Who said snap your fingers? we are talking about investment. The US already has enough oil to last until all cars are replaced if that's your worry. The real problem is allowing oil companies to grow even further, putting the public's health and climate at even more risk. The logical (even liberal if you think on $$ terms) choice is to invest in renewable.