US Climate Bill 'Ignites New Zeal' Around the World for Government Climate Efforts (politico.com) 47
Politico reports that the climate bill passed in America in 2022 "has ignited a new zeal among leaders around the world for the kind of winner-picking, subsidy-flush governing that has been out of fashion in many countries for the past 40 years."
The bill's "mix of lavish support for clean energy technologies and efforts to box out foreign competitors is also promoting a kind of green patriotism — and even some politicians on the right, at least outside the U.S., say that's a climate message they can sell." [The bill] is having a real-world impact as investors shift their money to the U.S. from abroad, hungry to take advantage of the tax breaks. In July, for example, Swiss solar manufacturer Meyer Burger canned plans to build a factory in Germany, choosing Arizona instead. That has left political leaders across the world with a choice: Grinch and grumble about the United States' sudden clean industry favoritism, or follow suit... Even the United States' favorite pals on the global stage have felt rattled by the sudden diversion from decades of free trading. But in the U.K., European Union and Australia, many leaders are now working on their own versions.
Some examples of upcoming climate actions:
- Australia's Labor party "has budgeted $1.3 billion in spending this year on green hydrogen projects and around $660 million on moving the economy toward electricity rather than fossil fuels."
- The EU will "start operating a border tariff on high-carbon products in 2026, which seeks to keep hold of its heavy industries even as they pay an increasingly punitive price for polluting to the EU Emissions Trading System."
- The UK Labour party plans messaging "that casts the green energy transition as a national mission which can create jobs in former industrial communities."
- In the U.S. the White House says its bill will spur closer to $700 billion — or even $1 trillion — in green incentives over 10 years. "As the White House sees it, the jump means the tax credits for priorities such as homegrown clean power and electric vehicles have proven more popular than initially anticipated."
Taken together, all the bills "reflect the urgency of the problem," Politico argues, "by aiming to transform the economy at a pace the market can't deliver on its own." "We are in the middle of a climate crisis because firms couldn't do the job of decarbonizing," said Todd Tucker, director of industrial policy and trade at the progressive think tank Roosevelt Institute. "The climate crisis is the world's biggest market failure ever and it's going to take really strong public investment."
The bill's "mix of lavish support for clean energy technologies and efforts to box out foreign competitors is also promoting a kind of green patriotism — and even some politicians on the right, at least outside the U.S., say that's a climate message they can sell." [The bill] is having a real-world impact as investors shift their money to the U.S. from abroad, hungry to take advantage of the tax breaks. In July, for example, Swiss solar manufacturer Meyer Burger canned plans to build a factory in Germany, choosing Arizona instead. That has left political leaders across the world with a choice: Grinch and grumble about the United States' sudden clean industry favoritism, or follow suit... Even the United States' favorite pals on the global stage have felt rattled by the sudden diversion from decades of free trading. But in the U.K., European Union and Australia, many leaders are now working on their own versions.
Some examples of upcoming climate actions:
- Australia's Labor party "has budgeted $1.3 billion in spending this year on green hydrogen projects and around $660 million on moving the economy toward electricity rather than fossil fuels."
- The EU will "start operating a border tariff on high-carbon products in 2026, which seeks to keep hold of its heavy industries even as they pay an increasingly punitive price for polluting to the EU Emissions Trading System."
- The UK Labour party plans messaging "that casts the green energy transition as a national mission which can create jobs in former industrial communities."
- In the U.S. the White House says its bill will spur closer to $700 billion — or even $1 trillion — in green incentives over 10 years. "As the White House sees it, the jump means the tax credits for priorities such as homegrown clean power and electric vehicles have proven more popular than initially anticipated."
Taken together, all the bills "reflect the urgency of the problem," Politico argues, "by aiming to transform the economy at a pace the market can't deliver on its own." "We are in the middle of a climate crisis because firms couldn't do the job of decarbonizing," said Todd Tucker, director of industrial policy and trade at the progressive think tank Roosevelt Institute. "The climate crisis is the world's biggest market failure ever and it's going to take really strong public investment."
Campaign finance at its best (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Receive campaign donations from the winners
3. Pick potential losers and shake them down for
4. More campaign donations
5. Profit
Re: (Score:2)
While they subsidize wind and solar heavily they keep kicking nuclear fission in the balls. There's no getting to net zero carbon without nuclear fission because that is the one energy source that is reliable and can be placed most anywhere, it's not nearly as reliant on favorable geography and climate as renewable energy sources. You might not want to put a nuclear power plant in a swamp where it can fall down, start on fire, then sink in the mud. Nuclear power plants don't need the huge tracts of land
Nuclear is well funded [Re:Campaign finance a ...] (Score:2)
While they subsidize wind and solar heavily they keep kicking nuclear fission in the balls.
Bullshit.
The 2024 nuclear budget request for the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) at the DOE is $1.56 billion,
(https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-key-highlights-fy24-budget-request-nuclear-energy ).
Meanwhile, the administration asked to increase the solar energy program budget from $318 million to $379 million... but the Senate proposal calls for flat funding, while the House proposal would cut the budget to $288 million.
Re: (Score:1)
$1.56 billion buys fuck all in the world of nuclear power plants. It costs more than that just to design one plant, which for some reason cannot be replicated across locations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what all the solar energy advocates have been saying: nuclear is too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear power industry isn't asking for money, they are asking for permission. Has any permits for new construction been issued lately? I noticed a few permit extensions have been issued but that's merely a continuation of existing policy of tolerating nuclear power plants that already exist. Even though some nuclear power plants had their permits extended they still had to close because they could not make a profit while wind and solar where subsidized so heavily.
I'll see people point to the how lit
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear power industry isn't asking for money, they are asking for permission.
Your previous post--the one my comment was a reply to--complaining about the lack of "subsidies".
That's money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear power industry isn't asking for money, they are asking for permission.
Permission and money. By-and-large it has permission and the NRC is very supportive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While they subsidize wind and solar heavily they keep kicking nuclear fission in the balls. .
Let me know when nuclear is buying its insurance on the open market.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like oil companies? Already done.
Let me rephrase (Score:3, Informative)
"US Climate Bill 'Ignites New Zeal' Around the World to cash in on the endless spray of money from American taxpayers until someone figures out they don't have the money to actually spend."
It's always great fun until someone shows up with a bill.
How much was lost on Solyndra, again?
Re: (Score:2)
The whole Solyndra raging makes me think no money should ever go to anyone. Not even oil companies - what happens if they have a bad day and it all gets blamed on the government? No government grants for any sciences, because science isn't a sure win. No government grants period, the money might not be used correctly. Sure, it's a complete upheaval of how things have been done for decades, which has been a success when looked at as a whole even if some spots here and there didn't go anyway.
Loans [Re:Let me rephrase] (Score:4, Insightful)
To briefly mention the other side of the coin: the Solyndra loan was a loan, not a grant, and was one of several hundred loans from the DOE Loan Program. Default rate on the DOE loan program overall was 2.28 percent, essentially the same default rate as SBA loans. Banks understand that sometimes businesses goes bankrupt and default on their loans, but apparently for government loans a single default twelve years ago is remembered, but the successful businesses aren't.
Despite the default on the Solyndra loan, the loan program as a whole ran at a slight profit
https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW as I think (?) you were implying something - I **entirely** agree that petrocompanies also shouldn't get loans.
I don't give the faintest shit that there's been a cozy relationship between lawmakers and industries for 50 years. That's part of a host of other connected problems.
I know, it's painful giving up deep addictions, as your snark illustrates.
I personally do not care at all whether petro, solar, nuclear, wind, whatever 'wins' as the best way to generate power, but one thing I know for sure is th
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe there is value in government giving grants to science and the arts. Especially for science. The snag with for-profit industries is that they only care about science if it gives them an advantage over the competition. So when they do science, they try to keep it secret if they can't patent it, or at least patent it out the wazoo. It is in the government's best interest, and the best interest of the people, to advance the sciences and arts even if these don't generate corporate profits directl
"Green Keynesianism" has its pluses and minuses. (Score:2)
Of course a lot of it is just compliance pantomime, but even that is an improvement on the sheer corporate obstinacy and willful ignorance that preceded it.
Out of fashion in many countries ... (Score:2)
I thought Stalin died 70 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he reincarnated and is now running things from the Kremlin again.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, don't ignite New Zealand (Score:2)
It's hot enough here already!
Drop in the bucket (Score:2)
"In the U.S. the White House says its bill will spur closer to $700 billion — or even $1 trillion — in green incentives over 10 years."
The cost of hitting global net zero by 2050 is estimated between $125 trillion and $275 trillion dollars, so roughly between 5 and 10 trillion globally per year, every year. So $100bn a year increase from arguably the world's largest economy is not going to suffice. Not even close.
Re: (Score:3)
The white house isn't footing the entire bill to turn around climate change. These are incentives. Ie, kick start the industries, not subsidize them in their entirety.
Re: (Score:2)
These are incentives. Ie, kick start the industries, not subsidize them in their entirety.
Yes. I think that is what "spur" means in the original quote. They are not actually spending that much, which only makes the total numbers even more optimistic.
Re:Drop in the bucket (Score:4, Interesting)
My compliant is more that no presidential administration can have a 10 year plan on anything.
Biden is coming up on the end of his first 4 year term as POTUS, meaning he has at best room for a 5 year plan. The same goes for Trump, he can't promise anything in 10 years since he'd be term limited if he won the next election for POTUS.
JFK made his famous "by the end of this decade" promise of landing a man on the moon in 1962, and it was a date that would have arrived before the end of his second term if things played out differently. People took this deadline seriously enough that the goal was reached in spite of JFK not being in office at the time. Are there enough people in government taking global warming seriously that anyone in the Biden administration can set in motion any kind of goal or policy for the next 10 years? I doubt it.
Members of Congress is similarly limited in the promises they can make. Maybe a senator can set some goal 6 years out but for the most part with 1/3rd of the Senate and all of the House up for election every 2 years they can really only set goals for 2 years out. If we include some of the time campaigning for reelection then maybe they can stretch that out to a 3 year goal, maybe 5 years if there's some kind of coordination among candidates in a party spread among the House, Senate, and White House. I expect there might be a reluctance to use the term "5 year plan" since that is a common theme among communist governments.
I'd be exceedingly pleased if any politician made another "by the end of this decade" kind of plan. By that I mean they set a goal for themselves that will come while they are expected to still be in office. Maybe a candidate for office could set a 10 year plan if they expected to get reelected, or get elected to higher offices as they progressed in their plan. Some politician that is going to be over 80 years old by the end of their term shouldn't be making 10 year plans, unless that plan includes their retirement.
I don't want politicians telling me what plans they have for 10 years out. I want to know what their plans are for the next 2 years. If they can articulate some milestones every 2 years on some larger 10 year plan then I might be able to follow. That would still require someone young enough to see it through, and not be term limited somehow before the end of that 10 year plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same goes for Trump, he can't promise anything in 10 years since he'd be term limited if he won the next election for POTUS.
Why does that still make me wince?
Re: (Score:2)
You said it yourself
People took this deadline seriously enough that the goal was reached in spite of JFK not being in office at the time.
Sure the plan could be changed tomorrow. Even with the same person in charge. But if you're 8 years along the 10 year path. There's much more chance of getting to the destination that if you just did nothing for 8 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"In the U.S. the White House says its bill will spur closer to $700 billion — or even $1 trillion — in green incentives over 10 years."
The cost of hitting global net zero by 2050 is estimated between $125 trillion and $275 trillion dollars, so roughly between 5 and 10 trillion globally per year, every year. So $100bn a year increase from arguably the world's largest economy is not going to suffice. Not even close.
Yay, another wilfully ignorant arse has no idea about macroeconomics! Yes, the transition will be expensive. It'll also generate massive economic activity, you know like the New Deal accelerated the USA out of the Great Depression? It's one of the core functions of government, i.e. to increase economic activity so that (hopefully everyone, if the system's not too corrupt) can prosper. Are you arguing that government shouldn't do its most basic of jobs? That instead we should do nothing to avert the coming c
Re: (Score:2)
WWII accelerated the USA out of the Great Depression.
The New Deal would have done F* all, had that not happened. Credit would have locked up and Government would have had to abandon almost all of it. Blind patriotism and an existential threat, provided the needed grease to keep things moving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's mighty big of you (Score:2)
Oh my God, how self-centered can they be to think that the world was just waiting for the United States to finally do something about climate change to spur them into action. Just look at the first example given in the summary about the Australian Labor Party starting some big projects. The problem with the article's theory is that the ALP launched their Powering Australia Plan [reputex.com] in December 2021 while they were the opposition party (and long before the US passed the Inflation Reduction Act). In this plan the
Re: (Score:3)
It is self-centered but not for why you think. They know they ain't leading the world on this, but that does not for a second make it not good for DNC propaganda and they know the captive media companies and big tech will play along.
Anything that takes more than two years? (Score:2)
Anything in any bill passed with Democrat support will be gutted the second Republicans take power again. And vice-versa. Anything that takes longer than the term of the people who pushed it through is bound to utter failure. Unless it's a spending bill that hands millions or billions to already profitable companies that they can then pass on to their own C-suites.
The world needs to stop watching the US for signs of progress, or anything really. We're like a hyperactive toddler when it comes to leadership.