3 ms·

US is rich in fossil energy so it doesn't have the same incentives as China does obviously.

flohofwoe 2mo ago
> US is rich in fossil energy so it doesn't have the same incentives as China does obviously. China isn't rich in fossil energy? That's news to me. They are the world's largest coal producer and still create over half of their electricity from coal. The difference to the US is that China seems to realize that this strategy isn't a long term solution.
- epolanski 2mo ago
  US exports energy, China imports it. Not sure what is there to argue.
estearum 2mo ago
Someone who is "rich" in a consumable asset and therefore chooses to just consume that instead of investing in a renewable or compounding asset is colloquially known as "a dumbass."
- navane 2mo ago
  And it's called "dutch disease". We did it with gas. Now look at Norway. We could've been like Norway.
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    We couldn't have been like Norway. Norway is super duper rich due to.... Oil rights elsewhere in the world. They play the best kid in class with electrification but their funding comes directly from contributing to the problem. And when Holland found the gas reserves in Groningen, global warming was really not known about yet.
    - navane 2mo ago
      Norway invested their oil winnings in a nation wide fund. The Netherlands spent their gas money on hookers and booze.
- epolanski 2mo ago
  But US seems to be doing a bit of everything no? But of course it doesn't have the same incentives of China.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    You are commenting on an article in which the US is deciding (and paying immense costs) in order not to do everything. The current administration is actively trying to squash several proven-valuable ways of converting non-renewable resources into renewable ones.
    - epolanski 2mo ago
      the current administration is the key word. In any case, you can't expect stable policies in a country with a winner-takes-all democracy.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        Not sure how that's relevant to the topic here. Your initial comment seemed to imply that these actions are the rational downstream consequences of the US's incentives. Now you seem to be suggesting that maybe it's not, but it's just the actions of the current administration? Not sure what policy stability has to do with anything. If anything it's a further indictment of your point. A successful energy project will span multiple administrations to come to fruition. It takes just one administration to kill a project... as illustrated by TFA. This is not in fact explainable as a rational response to the US's incentives.

> US is rich in fossil energy so it doesn't have the same incentives as China does obviously. China isn't rich in fossil energy? That's news to me. They are the world's largest coal producer and still create over half of their electricity from coal. The difference to the US is that China seems to realize that this strategy isn't a long term solution.

epolanski 2mo ago
US exports energy, China imports it. Not sure what is there to argue.

estearum 2mo ago

Someone who is "rich" in a consumable asset and therefore chooses to just consume that instead of investing in a renewable or compounding asset is colloquially known as "a dumbass."

navane 2mo ago
And it's called "dutch disease". We did it with gas. Now look at Norway. We could've been like Norway.
- wolvoleo 2mo ago
  We couldn't have been like Norway. Norway is super duper rich due to.... Oil rights elsewhere in the world. They play the best kid in class with electrification but their funding comes directly from contributing to the problem. And when Holland found the gas reserves in Groningen, global warming was really not known about yet.
  - navane 2mo ago
    Norway invested their oil winnings in a nation wide fund. The Netherlands spent their gas money on hookers and booze.
epolanski 2mo ago
But US seems to be doing a bit of everything no? But of course it doesn't have the same incentives of China.
- estearum 2mo ago
  You are commenting on an article in which the US is deciding (and paying immense costs) in order not to do everything. The current administration is actively trying to squash several proven-valuable ways of converting non-renewable resources into renewable ones.
  - epolanski 2mo ago
    the current administration is the key word. In any case, you can't expect stable policies in a country with a winner-takes-all democracy.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      Not sure how that's relevant to the topic here. Your initial comment seemed to imply that these actions are the rational downstream consequences of the US's incentives. Now you seem to be suggesting that maybe it's not, but it's just the actions of the current administration? Not sure what policy stability has to do with anything. If anything it's a further indictment of your point. A successful energy project will span multiple administrations to come to fruition. It takes just one administration to kill a project... as illustrated by TFA. This is not in fact explainable as a rational response to the US's incentives.