4 ms·

I'm very curious if there are any well-informed positive takes on Trumps climate policy. Personally, I believe even Biden-era efforts were insufficient; but al

I'm very curious if there are any well-informed positive takes on Trumps climate policy. Personally, I believe even Biden-era efforts were insufficient; but all the common arguments to do less against climate change that I encounter regularly fall into the following 3 categories: 1) Selfishness/Freedom at someone elses cost ("why should I suffer from restrictions just to mitigate negative externalities") 2) Poorly informed skepticism toward solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles, frequently involving extremely implausible assumptions about production costs. 3) (Misinformed) dismissal of climate-change consequences ("a few degrees warmer won't hurt too much") Currently I can't help but think that people will look back on this in a few decades and regard the whole position as obvious idiocy (similarly to the US waging war in Vietnam).

cogman10 1y ago
The best positive take I could make for the Trump policy is that the negative consequences of it are somewhat too late. Solar, wind, and battery, even without the grants, is already quite cheap. You'd have to fine the industries to really slow down deployment at this point. That means the 7B is mostly saved money with not too much negative impacts. (I still think it's a bad idea, don't get me wrong, but it's probably not the worst thing in the world).
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  I think they will find a way to fine or otherwise penalize wind and solar. Just give it some time, it hasn't been even a year yet.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Loudergood 1y ago
    Here you go https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/president-trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-biden-buttigieg-ignored https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/president-trump...
- jauntywundrkind 1y ago
  > Solar, wind, and battery, even without the grants, is already quite cheap. You'd have to fine the industries to really slow down deployment at this point. Hence the other part of this Evil Sinister Traitor plan, denying & rescinding permits for green energy blanketly: > The Interior Department released a new secretarial order Friday saying it may no longer issue any permits to a solar or wind project on federal lands unless the agency believes it will generate as much energy per acre as a coal, gas, or nuclear power plant. https://heatmap.news/sparks/interior-department-wind-solar-land-use https://heatmap.news/sparks/interior-department-wind-solar-l... Renewables aren't dense power! But America has land, and if we switch to renewables, maybe maybe the oceans won't rise & we won't lose a ton of land. God these people are literally the worst Captain Planet supervillain shitheels. Literally the worst hive of scum and villainy.
llm_nerd 1y ago
In a few decades? Anyone remotely rational or educated is looking at what is happening in the US right now as unbelievable idiocy. Idiocracy was overly rosey, as at least there Camacho understood self-limitations and could defer to others. In the US, a pedophile traitorous imbecile is busy laying out the same policy goals you would find in an online forum full of angry old assholes who never accomplished anything and are a joke, so the best they have is tearing down. A lot of very smart, capable people gave the US such a comfortable position on this planet that it allows absolute garbage like Trump to float (not going to sugarcoat it for the many Trumpists on here -- the guy is a garbage human being, and encapsulates the absolute worst traits of humanity. His takes on almost everything are impossibly stupid and ill-informed nonsense, but he has captured his party so thoroughly that the clucking chickens all start repeating buffoonery verbatim), and so many in US politics, to ply unbelievably clownery and get away with it for a while. But the collapse is coming much faster than many people realize.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- igor47 1y ago
  You had me until collapse. What are you picturing exactly? I think humans are really good at muddling through, and life will go on. I think enshittification is a better paradigm to think about the future than apocalypse
  - llm_nerd 1y ago
    Just ignoring the massive devaluation of the dollar underway, the complete loss of the US' geopolitical standing (which China is rapidly taking over), and just the general economic collapse the US is likely to face (though don't worry, Herr Trump is going to fire everyone that doesn't sharpie fake numbers in)... ...the dissolution of the union. Already representatives from one state -- one that is actively destroying democracy to serve the agenda of rapist Trump -- are sheltering in the opposition camp's state, under the protection of its governor. How long do people think this nonsense is going to continue? How long will better states endure having this human trash lording over them with their grievance and grift (remember that "free for the taxpayer" jet? Actually will cost taxpayers a billion dollars to be transferred to that criminal thief)? Soon enough tax withholding will happen, there will be a struggle, and the divisions will arise.
guywithahat 1y ago
I mean the positive take is sustainable change needs to be profitable; unprofitable change always turns into corruption. It's why Texas surpassed CA in terms of utility solar, while still having much cheaper electricity costs. When you create these government subsidized programs, you hurt low income individuals and risk creating bad government incentives. Even when programs are helpful initially, long-term they're unlikely to be repealed and are likely to overstay their use, eventually harming the climate.
- ave_b_2011 1y ago
  It’s worth remembering that one of the reasons the electricity in Texas may be cheaper is due to not winterizing the grid and the lack of planning for deep freezes. Anyone else remember the black outs?
  - guywithahat 1y ago
    You do realize how much worse blackouts in CA are, right? TX never even experienced a full grid collapse like CA; CA has planned blackouts based on how dry the forests are, because power companies aren't allowed to trim nearby trees. I don't mean to get personal but this is a really ill-informed opinion. Texas has to deal with hurricanes and legitimate weather events, CA has invented problems that cause blackouts at the expense of CA taxpayers; meanwhile CA pays 2-3x for the same power. It's really not a good comparison, CA has a famously mismanaged electric grid
    - ChoGGi 1y ago
      Luckily I don't have to deal with too much American fun. So take my opinion as you will. How many people died in the last major California outage? Didn't Texas have people freezing to death? I know what I'd rather deal with.
      - guywithahat 1y ago
        87 people died in the 2018 CA outage, and PG&E was eventually charged with 117 counts of involuntary manslaughter. Nobody died due to power outages in Texas during the freeze, and the power companies were not charged with any counts of involuntary manslaughter. In 2024, there were no deaths due to power outages in CA or in TX. That said, comparing natural disaster deaths is a stupid way to measure the success or failure of a power grid. Success should be determined by factors like uptime or cost. Why don't you look up the uptime and cost of the Texas grid vs the CA grid in 2024?
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
prasadjoglekar 1y ago
Having looked at Solar for my house in NY, I can only summarize as this: Solar tax credits are subsides for the well off. The poorest folks can't afford the cash cost of panels and don't have enough taxable income to use the offsets. The workaround to the high cost has been to lock less diligent people into 30 year power purchase agreements in return for no upfront costs. The lessor takes the subsidies and credits and it just creates another lien on the house.
- jobs_throwaway 1y ago
  > Solar tax credits are subsides for the well off. Sounds like a good thing to me! Subsidizing things that benefit the whole of society are 100% a good thing, even when rich people take advantage of them
- myrmidon 1y ago
  A valid point, but to me this sounds like you would want such a program to be a wealth redistribution program at the same time, and I believe trying to do that would just diminish the effectiveness (=> less panels built per spent tax dollar), and is better tackled separately.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  Greater adoption pushes prices down so that the less well off can afford. But it’s not so much that the poor need to switch, but rather than there are more households regardless of income who do switch to reduce fossil fuel reliance.
igor47 1y ago
I *strongly* disagree with Trump climate policy but I can give it a shot. Basically, fossil fuels have been a machine for lifting people out of poverty and creating economic growth. If you overlay charts of growth on top of charts of energy use, they're almost one and the same. Now, a bunch of head-in -the-sky liberals come along and decide we can't use these fuels anymore, and instead should use... Windmills? And their reasons are obviously fake. The climate has always changed, and isn't changing so much now, maybe even cooling recently. Their dire predictions keep failing to come true, and all their evidence comes from more liberal SJW University snowflakes. Worse-- all the stuff they want to deploy comes from communist China, while we have tons of oil and gas right here at home.
- exceptione 1y ago
  These are belly sounds, they don't form an argument.
  - igor47 1y ago
    My goal was to steelman an argument I disagree with. I'm not convinced -- I think climate change is a huge problem and we should move as fast as possible to try to solve it. But I also strongly dislike my allies on the left who reflexively dismiss any argument they don't immediately agree with as illegitimate. If you can't even attempt to pass the ideological Turing test, you should retain low confidence in your opinions.
    - exceptione 1y ago
      I am talking about argument-based-on-reasoning. Yes, I understood you did not believe the crap you were writing. Rational arguments have nothing to do with marketing labels like left, and any other binary belief traps. The things you mentioned are nothing more than echos of nonsensical political marketing that is deliberately NOT targeting the ratio. Instead, they aim the underbelly, the non-rational core we all have. It speaks to the peoples need to belong to a group, it speaks to deeply held beliefs, it speaks to identity. I understand it is incredible hard while drowning in a sea of identity politics, but do not conflate reason with political memes.

cogman10 1y ago

The best positive take I could make for the Trump policy is that the negative consequences of it are somewhat too late. Solar, wind, and battery, even without the grants, is already quite cheap. You'd have to fine the industries to really slow down deployment at this point. That means the 7B is mostly saved money with not too much negative impacts. (I still think it's a bad idea, don't get me wrong, but it's probably not the worst thing in the world).

actionfromafar 1y ago
I think they will find a way to fine or otherwise penalize wind and solar. Just give it some time, it hasn't been even a year yet.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Loudergood 1y ago
  Here you go https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/president-trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-biden-buttigieg-ignored https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/president-trump...
jauntywundrkind 1y ago
> Solar, wind, and battery, even without the grants, is already quite cheap. You'd have to fine the industries to really slow down deployment at this point. Hence the other part of this Evil Sinister Traitor plan, denying & rescinding permits for green energy blanketly: > The Interior Department released a new secretarial order Friday saying it may no longer issue any permits to a solar or wind project on federal lands unless the agency believes it will generate as much energy per acre as a coal, gas, or nuclear power plant. https://heatmap.news/sparks/interior-department-wind-solar-land-use https://heatmap.news/sparks/interior-department-wind-solar-l... Renewables aren't dense power! But America has land, and if we switch to renewables, maybe maybe the oceans won't rise & we won't lose a ton of land. God these people are literally the worst Captain Planet supervillain shitheels. Literally the worst hive of scum and villainy.

llm_nerd 1y ago

In a few decades? Anyone remotely rational or educated is looking at what is happening in the US right now as unbelievable idiocy. Idiocracy was overly rosey, as at least there Camacho understood self-limitations and could defer to others. In the US, a pedophile traitorous imbecile is busy laying out the same policy goals you would find in an online forum full of angry old assholes who never accomplished anything and are a joke, so the best they have is tearing down. A lot of very smart, capable people gave the US such a comfortable position on this planet that it allows absolute garbage like Trump to float (not going to sugarcoat it for the many Trumpists on here -- the guy is a garbage human being, and encapsulates the absolute worst traits of humanity. His takes on almost everything are impossibly stupid and ill-informed nonsense, but he has captured his party so thoroughly that the clucking chickens all start repeating buffoonery verbatim), and so many in US politics, to ply unbelievably clownery and get away with it for a while. But the collapse is coming much faster than many people realize.

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
igor47 1y ago
You had me until collapse. What are you picturing exactly? I think humans are really good at muddling through, and life will go on. I think enshittification is a better paradigm to think about the future than apocalypse
- llm_nerd 1y ago
  Just ignoring the massive devaluation of the dollar underway, the complete loss of the US' geopolitical standing (which China is rapidly taking over), and just the general economic collapse the US is likely to face (though don't worry, Herr Trump is going to fire everyone that doesn't sharpie fake numbers in)... ...the dissolution of the union. Already representatives from one state -- one that is actively destroying democracy to serve the agenda of rapist Trump -- are sheltering in the opposition camp's state, under the protection of its governor. How long do people think this nonsense is going to continue? How long will better states endure having this human trash lording over them with their grievance and grift (remember that "free for the taxpayer" jet? Actually will cost taxpayers a billion dollars to be transferred to that criminal thief)? Soon enough tax withholding will happen, there will be a struggle, and the divisions will arise.

guywithahat 1y ago

I mean the positive take is sustainable change needs to be profitable; unprofitable change always turns into corruption. It's why Texas surpassed CA in terms of utility solar, while still having much cheaper electricity costs. When you create these government subsidized programs, you hurt low income individuals and risk creating bad government incentives. Even when programs are helpful initially, long-term they're unlikely to be repealed and are likely to overstay their use, eventually harming the climate.

ave_b_2011 1y ago
It’s worth remembering that one of the reasons the electricity in Texas may be cheaper is due to not winterizing the grid and the lack of planning for deep freezes. Anyone else remember the black outs?
- guywithahat 1y ago
  You do realize how much worse blackouts in CA are, right? TX never even experienced a full grid collapse like CA; CA has planned blackouts based on how dry the forests are, because power companies aren't allowed to trim nearby trees. I don't mean to get personal but this is a really ill-informed opinion. Texas has to deal with hurricanes and legitimate weather events, CA has invented problems that cause blackouts at the expense of CA taxpayers; meanwhile CA pays 2-3x for the same power. It's really not a good comparison, CA has a famously mismanaged electric grid
  - ChoGGi 1y ago
    Luckily I don't have to deal with too much American fun. So take my opinion as you will. How many people died in the last major California outage? Didn't Texas have people freezing to death? I know what I'd rather deal with.
    - guywithahat 1y ago
      87 people died in the 2018 CA outage, and PG&E was eventually charged with 117 counts of involuntary manslaughter. Nobody died due to power outages in Texas during the freeze, and the power companies were not charged with any counts of involuntary manslaughter. In 2024, there were no deaths due to power outages in CA or in TX. That said, comparing natural disaster deaths is a stupid way to measure the success or failure of a power grid. Success should be determined by factors like uptime or cost. Why don't you look up the uptime and cost of the Texas grid vs the CA grid in 2024?

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

prasadjoglekar 1y ago

Having looked at Solar for my house in NY, I can only summarize as this: Solar tax credits are subsides for the well off. The poorest folks can't afford the cash cost of panels and don't have enough taxable income to use the offsets. The workaround to the high cost has been to lock less diligent people into 30 year power purchase agreements in return for no upfront costs. The lessor takes the subsidies and credits and it just creates another lien on the house.

jobs_throwaway 1y ago
> Solar tax credits are subsides for the well off. Sounds like a good thing to me! Subsidizing things that benefit the whole of society are 100% a good thing, even when rich people take advantage of them
myrmidon 1y ago
A valid point, but to me this sounds like you would want such a program to be a wealth redistribution program at the same time, and I believe trying to do that would just diminish the effectiveness (=> less panels built per spent tax dollar), and is better tackled separately.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
Greater adoption pushes prices down so that the less well off can afford. But it’s not so much that the poor need to switch, but rather than there are more households regardless of income who do switch to reduce fossil fuel reliance.

igor47 1y ago

I *strongly* disagree with Trump climate policy but I can give it a shot. Basically, fossil fuels have been a machine for lifting people out of poverty and creating economic growth. If you overlay charts of growth on top of charts of energy use, they're almost one and the same. Now, a bunch of head-in -the-sky liberals come along and decide we can't use these fuels anymore, and instead should use... Windmills? And their reasons are obviously fake. The climate has always changed, and isn't changing so much now, maybe even cooling recently. Their dire predictions keep failing to come true, and all their evidence comes from more liberal SJW University snowflakes. Worse-- all the stuff they want to deploy comes from communist China, while we have tons of oil and gas right here at home.

exceptione 1y ago
These are belly sounds, they don't form an argument.
- igor47 1y ago
  My goal was to steelman an argument I disagree with. I'm not convinced -- I think climate change is a huge problem and we should move as fast as possible to try to solve it. But I also strongly dislike my allies on the left who reflexively dismiss any argument they don't immediately agree with as illegitimate. If you can't even attempt to pass the ideological Turing test, you should retain low confidence in your opinions.
  - exceptione 1y ago
    I am talking about argument-based-on-reasoning. Yes, I understood you did not believe the crap you were writing. Rational arguments have nothing to do with marketing labels like left, and any other binary belief traps. The things you mentioned are nothing more than echos of nonsensical political marketing that is deliberately NOT targeting the ratio. Instead, they aim the underbelly, the non-rational core we all have. It speaks to the peoples need to belong to a group, it speaks to deeply held beliefs, it speaks to identity. I understand it is incredible hard while drowning in a sea of identity politics, but do not conflate reason with political memes.