this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
1553 points (95.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
5801 readers
2736 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except I referenced multiple things in that link; 3 of them were increased militarism, 1 was that oil production in the US had increased. Those are objectively bad things.
I would argue domestic production of oil is a generally good thing, or at least neutral/balanced thing.
Yeah, we need to get away from oil, and we need more green generation, but that takes a long time. There's a quick win in producing more domestically, by not having to import oil from halfway across the world, and also reducing foreign dependence for energy.
Problem is, last I heard, we are exporting most domestic oil now.
No, it's not neutral, as oil prices increase, the incentive to invest in green energy decreases. There's a reason US cars gas efficiency was abysmal until the oil embargo incentivized gas efficiency.
Oil prices should already be higher as it is. It costs roughly $4.40 just to recapture the CO2 that gets emitted from 1 gallon of gas. Gas should be closer to $10/gal (to capture the carbon emitted, and to pay for renewable subsidies, and the market price of oil itself).
But who would that hit? All of the expenses of higher fuel get sent down the consumer in the end, who is already getting squeezed for every cent.
That's why I didn't mention oil price at all. That's a very delicate issue all of its own. How do we severe our dependence on fossil fuels entirely, while also not destroying the economy? Not just the fatcats but every day folk too. The people with gas cars, and stoves, and clothes dryers, and hot water, and heat, that all would need to be retrofitted to electric. That's a huge expense. I don't think most Americans are in a place to buy a new car, today, because gas is suddenly $10/gal...and even less so because in this universe, ICE cars are entirely useless so there's no secondary market and no trade-in value. Let alone replace their appliances and HVAC.
We have to have more carrots for renewables and more sticks for fossil fuels...but too many sticks will collapse the whole damn thing. Not to mention carrots for public transit and walkable/bikable communities and everything else we should have in "the best and most advanced country in the world". We're a disgrace. We're not even the best and most advanced country in America. God damn koolaid turned sour.
Also keep in mind that personal use of fossil fuels isn't even one of the biggest sources of GHGs. That's still behind commercial transport/shipping and animal agriculture. It needs to be reigned in, but there are far bigger fish to fry.
That's why I focussed more on the drawbacks of international transport of oil. It takes energy and GHG emissions to get oil across the world. And there's a substantial risk to an environmental disaster along the way. The closer it is, the lesser risk of environmental disaster.
There's other ways we can relieve the consumer, such as removing the tariff on Chinese EVs and other green technology so they can afford it. Instead Biden is quadrupling it. Naturally Trump is already promising to raise it further so anyone who likes tariffs are going to vote Trump anyway, and anyone who wants a cheap EV just sees Biden raising the tariff.
Like Biden's border policy and foreign policy, it's morally wrong, but more importantly, every effort to appeal to "moderate republicans" is just electorally stupid. The fascists aren't gonna vote for diet fascism when they can have the real thing.
The Chinese government is heavily subsidizing the costs of those vehicles, both directly and through their labor practices. By exporting them to the US at a price-point that includes Chinese subsidies, it is an economic attack on our automotive industry. The Chinese government is basically paying half the cost of the car and the net effect would be to destabilize our domestic auto industry.
Put another way, it is not possible to have a car, made with fair labor practices, at that price, without direct government subsidies.
For the administration to not levy a tariff is essentially akin to bending over and taking their economic offense up the ass.
Apologies for citing Bloomberg, but it's the data they're citing that matters here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-02/us-europe-gripes-on-china-overcapacity-aren-t-all-backed-by-data
China's export prices for passenger vehicles have been increasing since at least Covid. If they were dumping/selling at a loss, we would expect it would decrease.
They sell for half the price domestically as they do rebranded in Europe because there is a strong domestic subsidy, but America has that too.