Sen. Schumer gas for electric car trade in program?

[Treetop Flyer]

I think what's trying to be said is that China is playing a strategic PR game, as they've done in the past, not that they're really actually doing the right thing. They can win this game because they're trying harder and have unity of purpose in doing so, while we as a country can't agree whether there is a problem.

If we need to up our PR game, let’s do it. Doubling down on reducing emissions because some island nation threw out “climate change” as an excuse for cozying up to China makes no sense. We already have done and will do a lot more than China. Doing more isn’t the issue in this case.

 

[Jim123]

I'm no hippy or environmentalist (I own a 2 stroke dirtbike) but I never understood the total unwillingness of people to take care of the environment and their push back against renewable energy. Some of the people I served with were convinced anyone who drove a Prius or Tesla were eco-terrorists.

I've wondered the same thing. Any self-respecting hunter/fisherman/outdoorsman should hate air and water pollution. There are people out there who split the difference (for example, the "tread lightly" offroading people) but I don't think they're vocal or in your face about it.

Bro truck coal rolling people who antagonize Prius people, now that makes even less sense. All the gas that Prius guy doesn't burn means more cheap gas for mister bro truck driver. That's economics.

 

[nodropinufaka]

I think what's trying to be said is that China is playing a strategic PR game, as they've done in the past, not that they're really actually doing the right thing. They can win this game because they're trying harder and have unity of purpose in doing so, while we as a country can't agree whether there is a problem.

This

 

[wink]

ure- China isn't leading by example. But if PINs are looking to someone and they go to China the United States loses.

Further- should we not lead by example on this?

I think what's trying to be said is that China is playing a strategic PR game, as they've done in the past, not that they're really actually doing the right thing. They can win this game because they're trying harder and have unity of purpose in doing so, while we as a country can't agree whether there is a problem.

If we need to up our PR game, let’s do it. Doubling down on reducing emissions because some island nation threw out “climate change” as an excuse for cozying up to China makes no sense. We already have done and will do a lot more than China. Doing more isn’t the issue in this case.

This is absolutely not about "leadership" on climate change. It is clearly not about who has done the most in reducing CO2. The whole PIN cozying up to the CHYCAPs thing is all about MONEY, dough, moola, Benjamin's, scratch, dinero. How much influence China has over PINs, and any other country, does not belong in any discussion of climate. China is building roads, hospitals, ports and stadiums all around the world. They are buying influence and it has noting to do with climate. As noted above, small island nations use it as an excuse to generate foreign aid and investment. If we dropped as much or more cash on these places they would be stroking Uncle Sam and the rest of the world would laud the return to US leadership on climate in the region.

 

[nodropinufaka]

If we need to up our PR game, let’s do it. Doubling down on reducing emissions because some island nation threw out “climate change” as an excuse for cozying up to China makes no sense. We already have done and will do a lot more than China. Doing more isn’t the issue in this case.

where are you getting your data from on saying we have done and will do a lot more? It simply isn’t true.

it’s not an excuse for cozying up to China. That’s what I’ve been trying to say.

They’re starting to suffer from the realities of climate change and there’s tons of data sets saying it is going to get worst and worst for these island nations.

it’s a threat to stability in the indo pacific region and a threat to national security as China gains more and more influence.

Go look at Chinas BRI and the Lowe institute data on their influence. It’s huge and it’s growing leaps and bounds because the US has two camps on climate change

1- it’s fake, not true, no need for renewable energy, models don’t support, etc

2- it’s real and we need renewable energy

Unfortunately it’s become such a political issue we are losing out on it.

 

[nodropinufaka]

This is absolutely not about "leadership" on climate change. It is clearly not about who has done the most in reducing CO2. The whole PIN cozying up to the CHYCAPs thing is all about MONEY, dough, moola, Benjamin's, scratch, dinero. How much influence China has over PINs, and any other country, does not belong in any discussion of climate. China is building roads, hospitals, ports and stadiums all around the world. They are buying influence and it has noting to do with climate. As noted above, small island nations use it as an excuse to generate foreign aid and investment. If we dropped as much or more cash on these places they would be stroking Uncle Sam and the rest of the world would laud the return to US leadership on climate in the region.

But it does belong in the discussions of climate because our diplomats and representatives of United States interests abroad are discussing it with those PINs.

I am not sure how familiar you are with Security Cooperation and ODHACA funding but the United States can’t just hand out money like you’re suggesting.

Also this is a good time to recommend anyone who is in a COCOM staff position or about to be to sign up for the Security Cooperation Course with JSOU. Great course and you will learn a lot.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Interesting read, thanks for linking. The costs associated with decommissioning reactors were almost certainly going to come due sooner or later with or without Germany's transition to more renewable energy, from the article you linked though the total cost of the decommissioning would be about €65 billion to include waste disposal and storage. It looks like the biggest cost in their transition will be from commitments for renewables during the transition when the cost of renewables is highest.

An important quote from the article, from a compilation of studies on the energy transition to renewables:

Overall, the energy transition has a slightly positive effect on the economy, mainly thanks to efficiency measures decreasing the need for coal, oil, and gas imports. In contrast to paying other countries for fossil fuel imports, Energiewende-related investments stimulate value added and growth in Germany.

Would I want us to be the guinea pig in a race to transition to all renewable energy generation like Germany? Nope, but I see little downside in trying to get to cleaner fuel sources that are more efficient and produce less waste than what we have used in the past and today.

Yeah you're right. I was a little unclear. Direct plus indirect cost will likely eclipse 1 trillion. I didn't mean to suggest indirect would be a trillion. As far as the inevitability of decomissioning reactors goes, ideally there would be some recapitalization with new nuclear tech instead of just outright shutting them down. At the end of the day, I agree with your last statement in principle. I just think technologically it makes it economically infeasible currently particularly in a country the size of the US.

 

[Swanee]

Did I say they were?

I smell what you're stepping in.


Perception is reality. So PR and psyops campaigns mean something.

America has convinced the world that these little island nations in the SCS are in danger of massive floods and sea level rising crises that threaten their continued existence. China has convinced them, as the worlds largest population and a close neighbor, they are doing something about it.

Our political infighting being broadcast to the rest of the world has unintended consequences.

We're open kimono, whether we want to be or not. The rest of the world will use that to further their interests- whether they are to align with us, or against us.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

where are you getting your data from on saying we have done and will do a lot more? It simply isn’t true.

it’s not an excuse for cozying up to China. That’s what I’ve been trying to say.

They’re starting to suffer from the realities of climate change and there’s tons of data sets saying it is going to get worst and worst for these island nations.

it’s a threat to stability in the indo pacific region and a threat to national security as China gains more and more influence.

Go look at Chinas BRI and the Lowe institute data on their influence. It’s huge and it’s growing leaps and bounds because the US has two camps on climate change

1- it’s fake, not true, no need for renewable energy, models don’t support, etc

2- it’s real and we need renewable energy

Unfortunately it’s become such a political issue we are losing out on it.

Carbon emissions peaked around 2005 in the US. China is continuing to rise. We just had a summit where we pledged to cut ours in half by 2030. They pledged to keep growing through 2030, and it’s quite likely they’ll actually just do whatever they want at that point. China is still building coal plants. But they are apparently leaders on “climate change” and that’s affecting our national security.

 

[nodropinufaka]

I smell what you're stepping in.


Perception is reality. So PR and psyops campaigns mean something.

America has convinced the world that these little island nations in the SCS are in danger of massive floods and sea level rising crises that threaten their continued existence. China has convinced them, as the worlds largest population and a close neighbor, they are doing something about it.

Our political infighting being broadcast to the rest of the world has unintended consequences.

We're open kimono, whether we want to be or not. The rest of the world will use that to further their interests- whether they are to align with us, or against us.

Yes. This.

Also just not the islands within SCS. They are influencing and growing footholds in Islands all the way out to the third island chain.

 

[nodropinufaka]

But they are apparently leaders on “climate change” and that’s affecting our national security.

Literally no one is saying that.

What is being said is that China is gaining influence beyond the SCS due to climate change within the PINs and China is able to get more influence in these islands because they appeal to these nations by saying that they are more focused on climate change the US is.

I don't understand your refusal to see that Chinas influence across the PINs is a major threat to National Security and global interests and that climate change is part of that.

The United States Diplomats say that, the Department of State says that, BHA says that, USAID says that, United Nations Says that, etc.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Literally no one is saying that.

What is being said is that China is gaining influence beyond the SCS due to climate change within the PINs and China is able to get more influence in these islands because they appeal to these nations by saying that they are more focused on climate change the US is.

I don't understand your refusal to see that Chinas influence across the PINs is a major threat to National Security and global interests and that climate change is part of that.

The United States Diplomats say that, the Department of State says that, BHA says that, USAID says that, United Nations Says that, etc.

I’m saying I don’t think the largest carbon emitter (and growing rapidly)is gaining influence due to climate change or that us redoubling our green initiatives will accomplish anything to slow them down. It’s flat out ridiculous to even imply.

If anything they are laughing their asses off at us pledging to turn our economy upside down while they roll coal and grow and bring more countries into their camp through economic growth.

 

[nodropinufaka]

I’m saying I don’t think the largest carbon emitter (and growing rapidly)is gaining influence due to climate change or that us redoubling our green initiatives will accomplish anything to slow them down. It’s flat out ridiculous to even imply.

If anything they are laughing their asses off at us pledging to turn our economy upside down while they roll coal and grow and bring more countries into their camp through economic growth.

If it’s so ridiculous to imply....then why is the state department and all of those agencies tasked with US Diplomacy saying that is?

 

[Swanee]

If anything they are laughing their asses off at us pledging to turn our economy upside down while they roll coal and grow and bring more countries into their camp through economic growth.

So what's the answer to both issues?

the EPA in the 1970s was pretty successful.

I grew up next to Onondaga Lake, and Allied chemical completely fucked the entire ecosystem of that place up. Should we go back to that? I don't care that Allied employed 1000 workers and brought money into the local economy; in a couple of decades they completely ruined Onondaga lake for generations to come (centuries if they don't clean it up). I kind of like the idea of having safe and clean places to swim, and sail, and windsurf.


The smog over LA and Phoenix is pretty bad. Do we let that become a normal thing over every big city?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

If it’s so ridiculous to imply....then why is the state department and all of those agencies tasked with US Diplomacy saying that is?

Some have more complex motives but a lot are probably just parroting something from a PowerPoint slide like “climate change is threatening our national security”