Excargodog

Now that my city friends who touted all that Smartgrowth cr@p for as long as I’ve known them have sold their “transit oriented development” condo and bugged out for Bozeman, they don’t seem near as enthralled with the prospect of $10/gallon gasoline taxes to force the “despoilers of the Earth” to pay for the “social costs” of their “sprawl lifestyle.”

furloughfuntime

Never hear people who are butt hurt over green energy subsidies complain about the billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas lobby over the last several decades. It's okay when the government throws money at the oil barons, but it's a bridge too far when it comes to Green Energy?

lol ok nice display of moral outrage

Green Energy is good for the economy, it creates well-paying jobs, and the fear-mongering towards it on these boards is hilarious. For all the talk about the threat of China on here, you would think trying to lead the world in innovation in a new sector would be of national security interest.

Swakid8

I agree lol. I get a kick out of it. I still waiting for Obama to take our guns too.

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.

furloughfuntime

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.

rickair7777

The potential problem is the direction it's heading. For example CA has already banned internal combustion engine automobiles in the future.

I don't care if the government opts not to buy IC cars, that's their prerogative, and part of market forces. The problem is when they tell the rest of is that we can't.

BTW, if you don't have a technical background, airliner engines are all IC, and there's no remotely practical alternative to that for 90-99% of airline ops... you might just be able to run very small, short range regional prop planes on batteries. But anything with much more than 20 seats is going to be economically infeasible.

I actually would have agreed with you, until a day or two ago. CDC considering covid testing mandates for domestic travel should be rather alarming for the bottom 95% of airline seniority lists.

You can't really complain if human progress and market forces make you obsolete, that's the breaks.

What makes people insanely angry is when their jobs, careers, lifestyles and futures are specifically targeted by the government for liquidation. POTUS is not the only politician in DC, I'm talking about the AOC/squad wing.

If government's going to go there, they need to make it smooth and relatively painless, and that's not going to be cheap.

nonononononono

the entire aviation industry will not exist in ten years all in the honor of the carbon footprint. cheers.

Ziggy

I think we need to get specific here. One of the issues is when using the term “green energy” what are you referring to? Solar and wind? Personally, I don’t think those technologies have matured yet to take on the base load. Sure, they’re feel good nice for supplemental. But look at the return on investment.

Also when talking about wind & solar you need to talk about storage or batteries. This requires rare and or heavy metals which creates toxic byproducts to process. So how green is it when you consider all aspects.

Also be sure your not being sold a bill of goods when politicians start talking swinging policy changes. Who profits from switching to green initiatives. Is it the automobile industry or specifically Cadillac who is looking to become the first all-model EV manufacturer? COVID has proven to be a boon to online retailers and a detriment to small shops/ business owners. So who’s going to get screwed this time?

rickair7777

This Federal Reserve president shares my opinion on green energy transition...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...KBN29Y2P7?il=0

itsmytime

when did they tell the rest of us we couldn’t?