Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Most people have no idea. Politicians brag openly and hold press conferences when they grant "cool" subsidies. But they don't do that for most other things.
Sure it's good for the economy.
The problem is that taking a slash-and-burn approach to ESTABLISHED economic sectors (such as petroleum and airlines) is actually quite bad for the economy, and a few jobs in the windmill industry aren't going to make up for that. For example what's the typical pilot going to do in green energy, drive a truck? For 20% of his pilot wages?
If GOVERNMENT is going to meddle catastrophically in major economic sectors then GOVERNMENT needs to develop the plan for job transitions. If they just regulate your job and lifestyle out of existence, and say "let them eat cake", they'll get the predictable results, complete backlash against policy and motives, and that extends even to legit underlying science (if any). Frankly any government plan to drive a major shift out of petroleum is going to require putting a lot of people on a very generous dole for life. Politically there's no other way. 51% of the population can't just vote away the lives, dreams, and financial future of the deplorable 25-30%... that's how you get insurrections (real ones, not dumbass rioters).
Basically they have to build the new system, and then invite the people in the old system to come on over.
Did you read the article? Biden halted
new leases on federal lands and announced his intention to buy electric vehicles. How is that a "slash and burn approach" or "meddling in major economic sectors"? I am trying to understand. The very fact that oil companies are allowed to lease federal lands shows that the federal government is not trying to destroy the industry. Would it also be meddling if the government bought cars with internal combustion engines? I don't see how this is slash and burn, but I guess we may have different definitions.
As far as the threat to pilot's jobs, that's just more fear-mongering. Nothing Biden has suggested could lead a reasonable person to believe that.
Creative destruction is part of technological change and innovation, and it's necessary. If you want them to "build the new system" so people can transition, that's exactly what these subsidies are for. Help a burgeoning industry gain its footing while we move to a more sustainable model.