this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
208 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19303 readers
2038 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Funds will be targeted at disadvantaged areas to create 200,000 jobs, after last week’s oil and gas lease restrictions in Alaska

Joe Biden will mark Monday’s Earth Day by announcing a $7bn investment in solar energy projects nationwide, focusing on disadvantaged communities, and unveiling a week-long series of what the White House say will be “historic climate actions”.

The president is traveling to Virginia’s Prince William Forest Park to deliver a speech touting his environmental record, including measures to tackle the climate crisis and increase access to, and lower costs of, clean energy.

Today’s centerpiece is the announcement of $7bn in grants through the Environmental Protection Agency’s “solar for all” program, funded by last year’s $369bn bipartisan Inflation Reduction Act, which the Biden administration says benefits more than 900,000 households.

The money will be targeted at low-income and disadvantaged areas, government officials say, and distributed through “states, territories, tribes, municipalities and non-profits across the country”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] youngGoku 16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Well with China facing sanctions for their oppression of Taiwan, could this be seen as a strategic divestment away from China?

Just asking, hopefully not offending anyone.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

My read is that it’s less about divestment or sanctions, and more about preserving industry capacity.

The U.S. used to have a lot of textile factories until free trade moved those jobs to other countries. And the automotive industry used to be much more U.S.-based. (It’s a bit different, because while plants did close, the major job losses and industry shifts were in sub-assemblies that get shipped to plants.)

What happens is that China is heavily subsidizing its ______ industry (solar panels, in this case). That’s why they’re so much cheaper. In addition to heavy subsidies, the Chinese yen is artificially weakened against other currencies, meaning that those currencies can buy Chinese goods more cheaply than they can goods produced domestically.

The end result is that in free trade situations, and most lightly restricted trade situations, that the Chinese goods outcompete domestic goods. This creates trade imbalances, causes domestic economic issues, and perhaps most insidiously, destroys the domestic industry. Factories owned by ‘people’ tend to go under, or wind up sold off to multi-national corporations. Either way, factories are run with leaner margins until cuts to maintenance ensure that they must close because repairing, rebuilding, or replacing is economically infeasible. Equipment is sold off, scrapped, or just goes dormant. Poorly maintained, dormant equipment that is not stored properly will likely never be able to be used again.
Buildings either continue to degrade with no maintenance or no tenants, or they get sold and repurposed.

And at that point, China moves its subsidies to other industries. Countries must buy their goods because they no longer have enough domestic producers of the goods, or the surviving domestic producers have moved into premium products, so China has cornered the market on affordable products.
It costs huge amounts of capital to spin up a factory, and factories in developed countries really only really exist because they already exist. The cost of property and tooling is often way, way too much to start a new manufacturing business, let alone the cost of skilled labor. Once a domestic industry has died or failed to launch when new products are expected to carry a premium, there are exceptionally few ways to revive that industry, aside from throwing huge amounts of money at it.

So… In this case, it’s to prevent China from smothering the U.S. nascent domestic solar panel industry. I doubt it’ll really succeed. We’ll probably wind up with a political shift and whoever is blowing in the breeze will quietly open up free trade on solar panels, or somebody will sue about the tariffs, and the courts will do something silly like declare the federal government isn’t actually a government, but is actually a hamster.