3 ms·

Instead of “suing ExxonMobil” (what a joke, basically just blank checks to lawyers), why don’t these billionaire assholes invest in green energy to compete in a

by xyst 2y ago

Instead of “suing ExxonMobil” (what a joke, basically just blank checks to lawyers), why don’t these billionaire assholes invest in green energy to compete in areas where O&G / coal is dominant - Great Appalachia, Permian Basin, and other areas. Give people in these areas higher paying jobs, retrain them as necessary, promote highly safe working environments (compared to dangerous oil fields). Then over time the sentiment regarding climate change shifts - politicians taking the cut from O&G will get replaced, laws can change, policies can be placed to push progressive initiatives.

airstrike 2y ago
People generally invest where returns are attractive. If it doesn't make financial sense to invest in those regions, then private investors aren't going to do it. One common argument against green energy projects is that they only have attractive returns when they come with sizeable subsidies attached, which really just means taxpayers are footing the bill. I appreciate those same taxpayers are also footing the climate bill, but people tend to care more about the dollars in their pocket today than some future risk which may or may not affect them directly.
- worik 2y ago
  > One common argument against green energy projects is that they only have attractive returns when they come with sizeable subsidies attached, which really just means taxpayers are footing the bill. That argument has been out of date for at least five years.
alephnerd 2y ago
> invest in green energy to compete in areas where O&G / coal is dominant - Great Appalachia, Permian Basin, and other areas You ain't building a solar array or a mega windmill farm in Appalachia - it is a significant upfront cost and very challenging. > Give people in these areas higher paying jobs, retrain them as necessary, promote highly safe working environments Easier said than done. One of the great things about renewable energy sources like Solar Arrays and Wind Turbines is that there isn't that much labor needed. The manufacturing is largely automated and maintenance doesn't need hundreds of people - maybe a dozen well paid Technicians at most. More critically, these are very technical power systems and the technicians managing these arrays often have a College Education in Electrical or Mechanical Engineering and a decent amount of professional experience. The regions disproportionately affected by your proposal are those with some of the weakest human capital in the US (Appalachia, Permian Basin, the Gulf coast, rural Alaska). ---------- Green Technology adoption is critical to ensure we can remain on Earth sustainably, but handwaving fears about job sustainability is a disservice, and plays a major roll in the arising backlash to green technology.
- xyst 2y ago
  > You ain't building a solar array or a mega windmill farm in Appalachia - it is a significant upfront cost and very challenging. Why is it only limited to solar or wind? Nuclear is a viable option and requires a shit ton of people to operate and pollution is nil compared to coal and O&G. There are plenty of ways to get this done. However our shitty economic policies based on neo-liberalism economics of the 1970s to 2010s have put us in a place where we are powerless to do anything about it. Decades of deregulation, tax cuts for billionaires and multibillion dollar companies, stock buybacks, subsequent cutting of public services, corporate glazing, hyper capitalistic culture have left us with very little to tackle this issue.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > Nuclear is a viable option and requires a shit ton of people to operate and pollution is nil compared to coal and O&G. How are you getting uranium at scale? Mining. What do you need to mine at scale? O&G. Nuclear also has extremely high upfront costs with significant opposition from society, making land acquisition and maintenance costs extremely high. Nuclear Plants also tend to require significant education with some amount of college education. > There are plenty of ways to get this done. However our shitty economic policies based on neo-liberalism economics of the 1970s to 2010s have put us in a place where we are powerless to do anything about it. Decades of deregulation, tax cuts for billionaires and multibillion dollar companies, stock buybacks, subsequent cutting of public services, corporate glazing, hyper capitalistic culture have left us with very little to tackle this issue Maybe, but a major reason why a lot of green energy is viable today is precisely because most of the inputs and maintenance are largely automated, making it much more cost effective at scale. It's difficult to make a case to unionized employees at in the O&G industry to say goodbye to SWE level salaries. The amount of retraining is very high (as these are complex systems) and often require a college education.
    - xyst 2y ago
      > How are you getting uranium at scale? Mining. > What do you need to mine at scale? O&G. So existing workforce in mines and O&G can transition to new green economy. Gotcha… > Nuclear also has extremely high upfront costs with significant opposition from society, making land acquisition and maintenance costs extremely high. So let’s stop giving (profitable) O&G billions of dollars in subsidies at the state, federal levels. Redirect subsidies towards acquiring land and maintenance (again more jobs…) > It's difficult to make a case to unionized employees at in the O&G industry to say goodbye to SWE level salaries. Unlike SWEs, those “SWE level salaries” come at the price of high risk of dismemberment, death, and injury. Offshore oil rigs and domestic oil fields are dangerous working environments. Plus is working 12 hr days really worth whatever 6 figures they pay you? Sure you _may_ have a shit ton of money towards the end of your tenure. But lose out on watching your kids grow up.
brikym 2y ago
The inconvenient truth is that there isn't enough pie to go around. Sometimes the wind or solar isn't generating. A carbon tax would force people to cut down their footprint and be more selective about how they use carbon and at the same time it would encourage investment into green energy storage solutions since they are now worth the same as taxed carbon. It's pretty difficult to get competitive profit driven companies to care when the best option right now is to buy fake carbon credits and keep on polluting for cheap.
LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
There are some 'billionaire assholes' investing in new 'nukkular', coz iz got wunderbar EROI. And could be really clean, if handled right, from cradle to cradle. But that's another matter to discuss, with endless chatter, about externalisation, drawing sankeys until exterminaton, succumbing to the offer of the cheapest bidder, just another dirty shitter. Arr tyarr tyarr.

by xyst 2y ago

airstrike 2y ago

People generally invest where returns are attractive. If it doesn't make financial sense to invest in those regions, then private investors aren't going to do it. One common argument against green energy projects is that they only have attractive returns when they come with sizeable subsidies attached, which really just means taxpayers are footing the bill. I appreciate those same taxpayers are also footing the climate bill, but people tend to care more about the dollars in their pocket today than some future risk which may or may not affect them directly.

worik 2y ago
> One common argument against green energy projects is that they only have attractive returns when they come with sizeable subsidies attached, which really just means taxpayers are footing the bill. That argument has been out of date for at least five years.

alephnerd 2y ago

> invest in green energy to compete in areas where O&G / coal is dominant - Great Appalachia, Permian Basin, and other areas You ain't building a solar array or a mega windmill farm in Appalachia - it is a significant upfront cost and very challenging. > Give people in these areas higher paying jobs, retrain them as necessary, promote highly safe working environments Easier said than done. One of the great things about renewable energy sources like Solar Arrays and Wind Turbines is that there isn't that much labor needed. The manufacturing is largely automated and maintenance doesn't need hundreds of people - maybe a dozen well paid Technicians at most. More critically, these are very technical power systems and the technicians managing these arrays often have a College Education in Electrical or Mechanical Engineering and a decent amount of professional experience. The regions disproportionately affected by your proposal are those with some of the weakest human capital in the US (Appalachia, Permian Basin, the Gulf coast, rural Alaska). ---------- Green Technology adoption is critical to ensure we can remain on Earth sustainably, but handwaving fears about job sustainability is a disservice, and plays a major roll in the arising backlash to green technology.

xyst 2y ago
> You ain't building a solar array or a mega windmill farm in Appalachia - it is a significant upfront cost and very challenging. Why is it only limited to solar or wind? Nuclear is a viable option and requires a shit ton of people to operate and pollution is nil compared to coal and O&G. There are plenty of ways to get this done. However our shitty economic policies based on neo-liberalism economics of the 1970s to 2010s have put us in a place where we are powerless to do anything about it. Decades of deregulation, tax cuts for billionaires and multibillion dollar companies, stock buybacks, subsequent cutting of public services, corporate glazing, hyper capitalistic culture have left us with very little to tackle this issue.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > Nuclear is a viable option and requires a shit ton of people to operate and pollution is nil compared to coal and O&G. How are you getting uranium at scale? Mining. What do you need to mine at scale? O&G. Nuclear also has extremely high upfront costs with significant opposition from society, making land acquisition and maintenance costs extremely high. Nuclear Plants also tend to require significant education with some amount of college education. > There are plenty of ways to get this done. However our shitty economic policies based on neo-liberalism economics of the 1970s to 2010s have put us in a place where we are powerless to do anything about it. Decades of deregulation, tax cuts for billionaires and multibillion dollar companies, stock buybacks, subsequent cutting of public services, corporate glazing, hyper capitalistic culture have left us with very little to tackle this issue Maybe, but a major reason why a lot of green energy is viable today is precisely because most of the inputs and maintenance are largely automated, making it much more cost effective at scale. It's difficult to make a case to unionized employees at in the O&G industry to say goodbye to SWE level salaries. The amount of retraining is very high (as these are complex systems) and often require a college education.
  - xyst 2y ago
    > How are you getting uranium at scale? Mining. > What do you need to mine at scale? O&G. So existing workforce in mines and O&G can transition to new green economy. Gotcha… > Nuclear also has extremely high upfront costs with significant opposition from society, making land acquisition and maintenance costs extremely high. So let’s stop giving (profitable) O&G billions of dollars in subsidies at the state, federal levels. Redirect subsidies towards acquiring land and maintenance (again more jobs…) > It's difficult to make a case to unionized employees at in the O&G industry to say goodbye to SWE level salaries. Unlike SWEs, those “SWE level salaries” come at the price of high risk of dismemberment, death, and injury. Offshore oil rigs and domestic oil fields are dangerous working environments. Plus is working 12 hr days really worth whatever 6 figures they pay you? Sure you _may_ have a shit ton of money towards the end of your tenure. But lose out on watching your kids grow up.

brikym 2y ago

The inconvenient truth is that there isn't enough pie to go around. Sometimes the wind or solar isn't generating. A carbon tax would force people to cut down their footprint and be more selective about how they use carbon and at the same time it would encourage investment into green energy storage solutions since they are now worth the same as taxed carbon. It's pretty difficult to get competitive profit driven companies to care when the best option right now is to buy fake carbon credits and keep on polluting for cheap.

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago

There are some 'billionaire assholes' investing in new 'nukkular', coz iz got wunderbar EROI. And could be really clean, if handled right, from cradle to cradle. But that's another matter to discuss, with endless chatter, about externalisation, drawing sankeys until exterminaton, succumbing to the offer of the cheapest bidder, just another dirty shitter. Arr tyarr tyarr.