New York City is suing five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city will be seeking billions in the lawsuit to recoup money spent by the city for resiliency efforts related to climate change.
The defendants in the city's federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
A BP spokesman declined comment. A Shell spokesman said climate change is a complex issue that should not be addressed by the courts. The other three did not immediately comment.
The lawsuit follows the city's announcement that it plans to divest its pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
New York City is suing five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city will be seeking billions in the lawsuit to recoup money spent by the city for resiliency efforts related to climate change.
The defendants in the city's federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
A BP spokesman declined comment. A Shell spokesman said climate change is a complex issue that should not be addressed by the courts. The other three did not immediately comment.
The lawsuit follows the city's announcement that it plans to divest its pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
There's something kind of rich about suing oil companies, when this very instant you have thousands of NYPD cars driving around, stopped at lights, idling to stay warm etc, making CO2 by burning the product of the very people you are suing.
Yeah, Exxon makes a lot of CO2 refining oil, but most of the CO2 they are "responsible for" isn't caused by them. It's caused by the end users of their product deciding to use it over some less convenient alternative.
Want to actually make a difference, do what major European cities are starting towards, pick a date to ban any non-electric vehicles, rather than this probably doomed publicity stunt of a lawsuit.
Eh...
Just sue the oil companies multiple times, until they pass the true cost of burning oil into their consumers.
Whatever environmental cost that may be valued at.
Now normally you'd just tax them, but it's sort of the same I guess.
Or you could ban them, but an increasing cost can still enforce a slower ban.
Whether we have time for a slower ban is a different matter. Probably not.
New York City is suing five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city will be seeking billions in the lawsuit to recoup money spent by the city for resiliency efforts related to climate change.
The defendants in the city's federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
A BP spokesman declined comment. A Shell spokesman said climate change is a complex issue that should not be addressed by the courts. The other three did not immediately comment.
The lawsuit follows the city's announcement that it plans to divest its pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
There's something kind of rich about suing oil companies, when this very instant you have thousands of NYPD cars driving around, stopped at lights, idling to stay warm etc, making CO2 by burning the product of the very people you are suing.
Yeah, Exxon makes a lot of CO2 refining oil, but most of the CO2 they are "responsible for" isn't caused by them. It's caused by the end users of their product deciding to use it over some less convenient alternative.
Want to actually make a difference, do what major European cities are starting towards, pick a date to ban any non-electric vehicles, rather than this probably doomed publicity stunt of a lawsuit.
Wouldn't that inevitably wind up being a massive, regressive tax on people who need cars to get places?
New York City is suing five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city will be seeking billions in the lawsuit to recoup money spent by the city for resiliency efforts related to climate change.
The defendants in the city's federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
A BP spokesman declined comment. A Shell spokesman said climate change is a complex issue that should not be addressed by the courts. The other three did not immediately comment.
The lawsuit follows the city's announcement that it plans to divest its pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
There's something kind of rich about suing oil companies, when this very instant you have thousands of NYPD cars driving around, stopped at lights, idling to stay warm etc, making CO2 by burning the product of the very people you are suing.
Yeah, Exxon makes a lot of CO2 refining oil, but most of the CO2 they are "responsible for" isn't caused by them. It's caused by the end users of their product deciding to use it over some less convenient alternative.
Want to actually make a difference, do what major European cities are starting towards, pick a date to ban any non-electric vehicles, rather than this probably doomed publicity stunt of a lawsuit.
Wouldn't that inevitably wind up being a massive, regressive tax on people who need cars to get places?
It's a ban on new non-electric cars being sold, it doesn't force people to scrap the cars they already have.
Going to Cairns for a scuba holiday on the barrier reef in a couple of weeks. Guess I'll get to see first-hand just how bad the coral bleaching really is, here's hoping there's still things alive out there!
Mr Ray on
+3
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
New York City is suing five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city will be seeking billions in the lawsuit to recoup money spent by the city for resiliency efforts related to climate change.
The defendants in the city's federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
A BP spokesman declined comment. A Shell spokesman said climate change is a complex issue that should not be addressed by the courts. The other three did not immediately comment.
The lawsuit follows the city's announcement that it plans to divest its pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
There's something kind of rich about suing oil companies, when this very instant you have thousands of NYPD cars driving around, stopped at lights, idling to stay warm etc, making CO2 by burning the product of the very people you are suing.
Yeah, Exxon makes a lot of CO2 refining oil, but most of the CO2 they are "responsible for" isn't caused by them. It's caused by the end users of their product deciding to use it over some less convenient alternative.
Want to actually make a difference, do what major European cities are starting towards, pick a date to ban any non-electric vehicles, rather than this probably doomed publicity stunt of a lawsuit.
Wouldn't that inevitably wind up being a massive, regressive tax on people who need cars to get places?
We have great public transportation. In the Netherlands we already levy an environmental tax on fuel and cars get taxed based on their emmisions. The polluter pays.
It's not realistic to think that being environmentally friendly doesn't entail lifestyle changes.
There are still people who think that happiness can be bought and status is derived from wealth.
New York City is suing five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city will be seeking billions in the lawsuit to recoup money spent by the city for resiliency efforts related to climate change.
The defendants in the city's federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
A BP spokesman declined comment. A Shell spokesman said climate change is a complex issue that should not be addressed by the courts. The other three did not immediately comment.
The lawsuit follows the city's announcement that it plans to divest its pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
There's something kind of rich about suing oil companies, when this very instant you have thousands of NYPD cars driving around, stopped at lights, idling to stay warm etc, making CO2 by burning the product of the very people you are suing.
Yeah, Exxon makes a lot of CO2 refining oil, but most of the CO2 they are "responsible for" isn't caused by them. It's caused by the end users of their product deciding to use it over some less convenient alternative.
Want to actually make a difference, do what major European cities are starting towards, pick a date to ban any non-electric vehicles, rather than this probably doomed publicity stunt of a lawsuit.
Exxon also became one of the leading researchers on global warming by creating a research department that was entirely devoted to fighting against climate scientists who said global warming was human caused. This meant that their research group actually had pretty good data on the when, what, and where of global warming before many other scientists.
So, yeah, I'm okay with New York city suing them, especially as New York City has a much more extensive public transit system than many other cities. If it was, say, Dallas trying to sue them, I'd probably tell them to screw themselves because Dallas has some god awful city planning and poor public transit options.
Yeah, they're using oil right now. Frankly we're probably always going to be using oil to some extent as long as it exists. However the fact that the oil companies are constantly running opposition on global warming when they're well aware of their part in it is still something that someone needs to smack them on the nose with.
+19
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
The shift to EVs has already started and nothing going to stop it, just slow it down. I'm seeing the shift everywhere from delivery to personal transport. EVs are proving to be a boon for taxi drivers. Your average NY city cab does less than 200 miles a day. With so many 200+ miles range EVs available, cab drivers are saving big, not just in emissions but in maintenance and fuels costs.
The shift to EVs has already started and nothing going to stop it, just slow it down. I'm seeing the shift everywhere from delivery to personal transport. EVs are proving to be a boon for taxi drivers. Your average NY city cab does less than 200 miles a day. With so many 200+ miles range EVs available, cab drivers are saving big, not just in emissions but in maintenance and fuels costs.
While I agree that EVs should be used instead of gas powered cars, miles per charge is not a great metric for taxi conditions. A taxi may only travel short distances usually, but they also often run continuously between jobs. It's the same for police vehicles. The distance travelled isn't exactly a good indication of normal use.
New York City is suing five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city will be seeking billions in the lawsuit to recoup money spent by the city for resiliency efforts related to climate change.
The defendants in the city's federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
A BP spokesman declined comment. A Shell spokesman said climate change is a complex issue that should not be addressed by the courts. The other three did not immediately comment.
The lawsuit follows the city's announcement that it plans to divest its pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
There's something kind of rich about suing oil companies, when this very instant you have thousands of NYPD cars driving around, stopped at lights, idling to stay warm etc, making CO2 by burning the product of the very people you are suing.
Yeah, Exxon makes a lot of CO2 refining oil, but most of the CO2 they are "responsible for" isn't caused by them. It's caused by the end users of their product deciding to use it over some less convenient alternative.
Want to actually make a difference, do what major European cities are starting towards, pick a date to ban any non-electric vehicles, rather than this probably doomed publicity stunt of a lawsuit.
Wouldn't that inevitably wind up being a massive, regressive tax on people who need cars to get places?
We have great public transportation. In the Netherlands we already levy an environmental tax on fuel and cars get taxed based on their emmisions. The polluter pays.
It's not realistic to think that being environmentally friendly doesn't entail lifestyle changes.
There are still people who think that happiness can be bought and status is derived from wealth.
That's great that the polluter pays in Europe. Here that would go over like a lead balloon.
Also, I wasn't talking about the wealthy; I was talking about people who literally cannot survive without a car because they need it to get to their job. A whole bunch of low-income people became unemployed and pretty much screwed when Milwaukee cut bus routes a few years ago to save money.
New York City is suing five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city will be seeking billions in the lawsuit to recoup money spent by the city for resiliency efforts related to climate change.
The defendants in the city's federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
A BP spokesman declined comment. A Shell spokesman said climate change is a complex issue that should not be addressed by the courts. The other three did not immediately comment.
The lawsuit follows the city's announcement that it plans to divest its pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
There's something kind of rich about suing oil companies, when this very instant you have thousands of NYPD cars driving around, stopped at lights, idling to stay warm etc, making CO2 by burning the product of the very people you are suing.
Yeah, Exxon makes a lot of CO2 refining oil, but most of the CO2 they are "responsible for" isn't caused by them. It's caused by the end users of their product deciding to use it over some less convenient alternative.
Want to actually make a difference, do what major European cities are starting towards, pick a date to ban any non-electric vehicles, rather than this probably doomed publicity stunt of a lawsuit.
Wouldn't that inevitably wind up being a massive, regressive tax on people who need cars to get places?
We have great public transportation. In the Netherlands we already levy an environmental tax on fuel and cars get taxed based on their emmisions. The polluter pays.
It's not realistic to think that being environmentally friendly doesn't entail lifestyle changes.
There are still people who think that happiness can be bought and status is derived from wealth.
That's great that the polluter pays in Europe. Here that would go over like a lead balloon.
Also, I wasn't talking about the wealthy; I was talking about people who literally cannot survive without a car because they need it to get to their job. A whole bunch of low-income people became unemployed and pretty much screwed when Milwaukee cut bus routes a few years ago to save money.
The first sentence of Dirtmuncher's post is an important one.
A strong public transportation system is imperative to having this work. If owning personal transportation isn't a necessity for employment (and for most living circumstances), then it becomes an actual choice, rather than just a tax on poor people. I mean, I was only in New York for a few days, but the subway system for all it's faults, and reasonable city planning, meant that hiring a car was unnecessary. However when I visit family in suburban Indiana, if you don't have a car, you're doing nothing.
The shift to EVs has already started and nothing going to stop it, just slow it down. I'm seeing the shift everywhere from delivery to personal transport. EVs are proving to be a boon for taxi drivers. Your average NY city cab does less than 200 miles a day. With so many 200+ miles range EVs available, cab drivers are saving big, not just in emissions but in maintenance and fuels costs.
What is needed is a company or such to do EV conversions. Renault and Bosch don't expect to have their drive trains available until 2022 at the earliest.
New York City is suing five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city will be seeking billions in the lawsuit to recoup money spent by the city for resiliency efforts related to climate change.
The defendants in the city's federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
A BP spokesman declined comment. A Shell spokesman said climate change is a complex issue that should not be addressed by the courts. The other three did not immediately comment.
The lawsuit follows the city's announcement that it plans to divest its pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
There's something kind of rich about suing oil companies, when this very instant you have thousands of NYPD cars driving around, stopped at lights, idling to stay warm etc, making CO2 by burning the product of the very people you are suing.
Yeah, Exxon makes a lot of CO2 refining oil, but most of the CO2 they are "responsible for" isn't caused by them. It's caused by the end users of their product deciding to use it over some less convenient alternative.
Want to actually make a difference, do what major European cities are starting towards, pick a date to ban any non-electric vehicles, rather than this probably doomed publicity stunt of a lawsuit.
Wouldn't that inevitably wind up being a massive, regressive tax on people who need cars to get places?
We have great public transportation. In the Netherlands we already levy an environmental tax on fuel and cars get taxed based on their emmisions. The polluter pays.
It's not realistic to think that being environmentally friendly doesn't entail lifestyle changes.
There are still people who think that happiness can be bought and status is derived from wealth.
That's great that the polluter pays in Europe. Here that would go over like a lead balloon.
Also, I wasn't talking about the wealthy; I was talking about people who literally cannot survive without a car because they need it to get to their job. A whole bunch of low-income people became unemployed and pretty much screwed when Milwaukee cut bus routes a few years ago to save money.
The first sentence of Dirtmuncher's post is an important one.
A strong public transportation system is imperative to having this work. If owning personal transportation isn't a necessity for employment (and for most living circumstances), then it becomes an actual choice, rather than just a tax on poor people. I mean, I was only in New York for a few days, but the subway system for all it's faults, and reasonable city planning, meant that hiring a car was unnecessary. However when I visit family in suburban Indiana, if you don't have a car, you're doing nothing.
I feel we need a better public transportation network than the large bus as the bus goes vaguely where I need to go but not where I need to go.
Instead something like glorified airport shuttles servicing smaller areas to a whole of a network would really help with our ageing population and the myth of the active senior
New York City is suing five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the city will be seeking billions in the lawsuit to recoup money spent by the city for resiliency efforts related to climate change.
The defendants in the city's federal lawsuit are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
A BP spokesman declined comment. A Shell spokesman said climate change is a complex issue that should not be addressed by the courts. The other three did not immediately comment.
The lawsuit follows the city's announcement that it plans to divest its pension funds from fossil fuel companies.
There's something kind of rich about suing oil companies, when this very instant you have thousands of NYPD cars driving around, stopped at lights, idling to stay warm etc, making CO2 by burning the product of the very people you are suing.
Yeah, Exxon makes a lot of CO2 refining oil, but most of the CO2 they are "responsible for" isn't caused by them. It's caused by the end users of their product deciding to use it over some less convenient alternative.
Want to actually make a difference, do what major European cities are starting towards, pick a date to ban any non-electric vehicles, rather than this probably doomed publicity stunt of a lawsuit.
Wouldn't that inevitably wind up being a massive, regressive tax on people who need cars to get places?
We have great public transportation. In the Netherlands we already levy an environmental tax on fuel and cars get taxed based on their emmisions. The polluter pays.
It's not realistic to think that being environmentally friendly doesn't entail lifestyle changes.
There are still people who think that happiness can be bought and status is derived from wealth.
That's great that the polluter pays in Europe. Here that would go over like a lead balloon.
Also, I wasn't talking about the wealthy; I was talking about people who literally cannot survive without a car because they need it to get to their job. A whole bunch of low-income people became unemployed and pretty much screwed when Milwaukee cut bus routes a few years ago to save money.
Milwaukee cut bus routes to screw and unemploy a whole bunch of low-income people. Saving money is just an excuse.
Simply providing more public transport isn't really possible. The entire way American towns and cities are built needs to be changed to make public transport possible.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Simply providing more public transport isn't really possible. The entire way American towns and cities are built needs to be changed to make public transport possible.
Yup. It's a catch-22.
Cities are built sprawling, because everyone drives. Public transportation is harder to implement because the city is a sprawl. Lack of public transportation forces everyone to drive.
+12
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Urban planning and zoning that was designed explicitly to assist those most in need of the utilities and services being provided would help.
As it stands, people have been able to reinforce segregation and racial discrimination through urban planning and zoning, both intentionally and unintentionally.
Here's my go-to site for actual, enactable ideas for American cities and towns to fix the public transit issue, among others: https://www.strongtowns.org/
TL;DR - What's needed in the suburbs, desperately, is infill development and diversification of use, which will need to be made legal (isn't under current zoning codes) in order to increase tax revenue. If this isn't done most suburbs will eventually hit a wall and fail to pay their own basic maintenance bills (even now nearly 100% of them survive from leeching off their core city, as the suburban development pattern does not pay for itself) which will all come due simultaneously, as suburbs are generally built all at the same time and therefore things break down at the same time. It's to be expected that all upper and middle class residents will flee around this time, leaving the poor (and the neighborhood) to rot. None of this even touches what will happen if oil prices start going up...
Anyway! That site above has lots of positive bipartisan solutions, and is the only place I have EVER seen where liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists and more come together and respectfully discuss ideas. I recommend you peruse it and feel a little bit better about our country
+11
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
President Trump on Monday imposed tariffs of 30 percent on imported solar panel technology in a bid to protect domestic manufacturers while signaling a more aggressive approach toward China.
The move is a major blow for the $28 billion solar industry, which gets about 80 percent of its solar panel products from imports.
The Solar Energy Industries Association predicted the tariffs would increase prices and kill 23,000 jobs. The group represents manufacturers as well as installers, sellers and others in the field.
This isn't about being aggressive against Chinese business, it's about stepping on the climate change issue. Choking a business that can help step away from fossil fuels.
Um, I’m not a trade expect or anything but I drive by the site of the former Solyndra HQ on my commute. They received a giant loan from the government under obama but eventually went bankrupt because their competters (mostly Chinese) undercut them and they couldn’t compete. A lot of people lost their jobs through thankfully not anyone I knew.
Solar power is the future and it makes sense to ensure the Chinese can’t kill off domestic production just as the industry starts to take off.
Battlenet ID: NullPointer
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Um, I’m not a trade expect or anything but I drive by the site of the former Solyndra HQ on my commute. They received a giant loan from the government under obama but eventually went bankrupt because their competters (mostly Chinese) undercut them and they couldn’t compete. A lot of people lost their jobs through thankfully not anyone I knew.
Solar power is the future and it makes sense to ensure the Chinese can’t kill off domestic production just as the industry starts to take off.
We don't have the manufacturing capacity here to go it alone is the thing. Installers of solar panel systems are about to get hit hard.
There are already significant solar panel tariffs on China, mentioned in that article but in only 1 sentence. The Obama admin put those tariffs up a couple of years ago in response to China heavily subsidizing their solar panel manufacturing and the Chinese undercutting mentioned. Trump isn't changing those in response to new Chinese policy or new data, he's instituting a new tariff on solar panel imports from anywhere in the world while pretending it's about the Chinese.
There are already significant solar panel tariffs on China, mentioned in that article but in only 1 sentence. The Obama admin put those tariffs up in response to China heavily subsidizing their solar panel manufacturing a couple years ago. And Trump isn't changing those in response to new Chinese policy or new data, he's instituting a new tariff on solar panel imports from anywhere in the world while pretending it's about the Chinese.
Again not an expert on solar or trade but the article says that "While the action is targeted at imports from China, Trump’s tariffs apply to all imports, since Chinese manufacturers have moved operations to other countries." The tariffs are only temporary and fall off 3 years if I read the article correctly which doesn't strike me as long enough but it seems a good start.
I'm no fan of President Trump but this seems like something that President Clinton would have done as well. Temporary protecting domestic industry against subsidized foreign competitors is something nations are supposed to do.
There are already significant solar panel tariffs on China, mentioned in that article but in only 1 sentence. The Obama admin put those tariffs up in response to China heavily subsidizing their solar panel manufacturing a couple years ago. And Trump isn't changing those in response to new Chinese policy or new data, he's instituting a new tariff on solar panel imports from anywhere in the world while pretending it's about the Chinese.
Again not an expert on solar or trade but the article says that "While the action is targeted at imports from China, Trump’s tariffs apply to all imports, since Chinese manufacturers have moved operations to other countries." The tariffs are only temporary and fall off 3 years if I read the article correctly which doesn't strike me as long enough but it seems a good start.
I'm no fan of President Trump but this seems like something that President Clinton would have done as well. Temporary protecting domestic industry against subsidized foreign competitors is something nations are supposed to do.
I doubt Clinton would have done this. Trump and Pruitt aren't champing at the bit to combat climate warming--hell, Pruitt probably sexts oil execs stuff like "spit in my mouth and frack near aquifers daddy" in his office's "Privacy Booth"--and they're not funding and programs that give loans to upstart solar companies, so this was almost certainly done in the name of "lol fuck hippies" + "DRILL BBY DRILL"
Welcome to the Captain Planet Villain administration.
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'll avoid the specific what-if scenario and instead come to this - Trump will take very short-sighted gestures, but never consider any follow-thru work. Want to increase the American jobs side of things? It's not just about imposing tariffs. There are subsidies and tax incentives and other things that a government can do to foster a business. If we had anyone else as president, those things would be announced along with this tariff as a comprehensive plan. But we're stuck with a dingdong for the moment.
Even if you put a solar panel factory in the US, you still have to ship all the base materials and/or components to the factory for assembly.
China owns most of the rare earth metal sources needed for solar panels and other electronic components, and the entire electronics component assembly line is based on the East Asian coast.
Putting a tariff on Chinese solar panels means that they will retaliate by raising prices on the rare earth metals and/or components, so all that has been done is make solar economically unviable in the US.
What I think will ultimately happen is that a Chinese company will do the final assembly in some automated factory (subsidized with sweetheart tax cut deals like always) on the West Coast, getting around the tariffs and not really benefiting the US much at all.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Even if you put a solar panel factory in the US, you still have to ship all the base materials and/or components to the factory for assembly.
China owns most of the rare earth metal sources needed for solar panels and other electronic components, and the entire electronics component assembly line is based on the East Asian coast.
Putting a tariff on Chinese solar panels means that they will retaliate by raising prices on the rare earth metals and/or components, so all that has been done is make solar economically unviable in the US.
What I think will ultimately happen is that a Chinese company will do the final assembly in some automated factory (subsidized with sweetheart tax cut deals like always) on the West Coast, getting around the tariffs and not really benefiting the US much at all.
Just don't spend a third of a fiscal years revenues on the damn thing. Wisconsin brought in ~$15.5billion in revenues in FY2017, Foxconn is now expected to cost at least $4.5billion (over 10 years) to the tax payers of Wisconsin.
Um, I’m not a trade expect or anything but I drive by the site of the former Solyndra HQ on my commute. They received a giant loan from the government under obama but eventually went bankrupt because their competters (mostly Chinese) undercut them and they couldn’t compete. A lot of people lost their jobs through thankfully not anyone I knew.
Solar power is the future and it makes sense to ensure the Chinese can’t kill off domestic production just as the industry starts to take off.
The solar industry has not been investing, and can't keep up with demand.
Um, I’m not a trade expect or anything but I drive by the site of the former Solyndra HQ on my commute. They received a giant loan from the government under obama but eventually went bankrupt because their competters (mostly Chinese) undercut them and they couldn’t compete. A lot of people lost their jobs through thankfully not anyone I knew.
Solar power is the future and it makes sense to ensure the Chinese can’t kill off domestic production just as the industry starts to take off.
The solar industry has not been investing, and can't keep up with demand.
I remember way back in 7th grade science the teacher while learning how solar power worked told us how it was a pipe dream in the US because of how it was being built in China
How china was already building solar networks in Africa and for itself and how it was basically too late for the US because people are idiots.
I remember this discussion from long ago as I see people installing solar panels and how the local power company will fight you tooth and nail about cutting yourself off the grid
President Trump on Monday imposed tariffs of 30 percent on imported solar panel technology in a bid to protect domestic manufacturers while signaling a more aggressive approach toward China.
The move is a major blow for the $28 billion solar industry, which gets about 80 percent of its solar panel products from imports.
The Solar Energy Industries Association predicted the tariffs would increase prices and kill 23,000 jobs. The group represents manufacturers as well as installers, sellers and others in the field.
This isn't about being aggressive against Chinese business, it's about stepping on the climate change issue. Choking a business that can help step away from fossil fuels.
As much as I love to hate on Trump, if Obama had done this Solyndra (the right's favorite example of a failed stimulus project) would probably still be around. Their business model and technology was great, they just couldn't compete with the temporary loss the Chinese government was willing to take on less efficient solar panels in exchange for market dominance. I'm honestly not sure how many manufacturers are left at this point, but it's either tariffs or subsidies.
Posts
Don't defame the great Perd Hapley by comparing him to Trump.
There's something kind of rich about suing oil companies, when this very instant you have thousands of NYPD cars driving around, stopped at lights, idling to stay warm etc, making CO2 by burning the product of the very people you are suing.
Yeah, Exxon makes a lot of CO2 refining oil, but most of the CO2 they are "responsible for" isn't caused by them. It's caused by the end users of their product deciding to use it over some less convenient alternative.
Want to actually make a difference, do what major European cities are starting towards, pick a date to ban any non-electric vehicles, rather than this probably doomed publicity stunt of a lawsuit.
Just sue the oil companies multiple times, until they pass the true cost of burning oil into their consumers.
Whatever environmental cost that may be valued at.
Now normally you'd just tax them, but it's sort of the same I guess.
Or you could ban them, but an increasing cost can still enforce a slower ban.
Whether we have time for a slower ban is a different matter. Probably not.
Wouldn't that inevitably wind up being a massive, regressive tax on people who need cars to get places?
It's a ban on new non-electric cars being sold, it doesn't force people to scrap the cars they already have.
We have great public transportation. In the Netherlands we already levy an environmental tax on fuel and cars get taxed based on their emmisions. The polluter pays.
It's not realistic to think that being environmentally friendly doesn't entail lifestyle changes.
There are still people who think that happiness can be bought and status is derived from wealth.
Exxon also became one of the leading researchers on global warming by creating a research department that was entirely devoted to fighting against climate scientists who said global warming was human caused. This meant that their research group actually had pretty good data on the when, what, and where of global warming before many other scientists.
So, yeah, I'm okay with New York city suing them, especially as New York City has a much more extensive public transit system than many other cities. If it was, say, Dallas trying to sue them, I'd probably tell them to screw themselves because Dallas has some god awful city planning and poor public transit options.
Yeah, they're using oil right now. Frankly we're probably always going to be using oil to some extent as long as it exists. However the fact that the oil companies are constantly running opposition on global warming when they're well aware of their part in it is still something that someone needs to smack them on the nose with.
JohnnyCab!
Robert Picardo better get royalty payments.
Better to switch to EV sooner so as to maximize profits in that case.
While I agree that EVs should be used instead of gas powered cars, miles per charge is not a great metric for taxi conditions. A taxi may only travel short distances usually, but they also often run continuously between jobs. It's the same for police vehicles. The distance travelled isn't exactly a good indication of normal use.
There's still some energy loss for climate control, but that's about it.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
That's great that the polluter pays in Europe. Here that would go over like a lead balloon.
Also, I wasn't talking about the wealthy; I was talking about people who literally cannot survive without a car because they need it to get to their job. A whole bunch of low-income people became unemployed and pretty much screwed when Milwaukee cut bus routes a few years ago to save money.
A strong public transportation system is imperative to having this work. If owning personal transportation isn't a necessity for employment (and for most living circumstances), then it becomes an actual choice, rather than just a tax on poor people. I mean, I was only in New York for a few days, but the subway system for all it's faults, and reasonable city planning, meant that hiring a car was unnecessary. However when I visit family in suburban Indiana, if you don't have a car, you're doing nothing.
What is needed is a company or such to do EV conversions. Renault and Bosch don't expect to have their drive trains available until 2022 at the earliest.
I feel we need a better public transportation network than the large bus as the bus goes vaguely where I need to go but not where I need to go.
Instead something like glorified airport shuttles servicing smaller areas to a whole of a network would really help with our ageing population and the myth of the active senior
Milwaukee cut bus routes to screw and unemploy a whole bunch of low-income people. Saving money is just an excuse.
Cities are built sprawling, because everyone drives. Public transportation is harder to implement because the city is a sprawl. Lack of public transportation forces everyone to drive.
Urban planning and zoning that was designed explicitly to assist those most in need of the utilities and services being provided would help.
As it stands, people have been able to reinforce segregation and racial discrimination through urban planning and zoning, both intentionally and unintentionally.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Here's my go-to site for actual, enactable ideas for American cities and towns to fix the public transit issue, among others: https://www.strongtowns.org/
TL;DR - What's needed in the suburbs, desperately, is infill development and diversification of use, which will need to be made legal (isn't under current zoning codes) in order to increase tax revenue. If this isn't done most suburbs will eventually hit a wall and fail to pay their own basic maintenance bills (even now nearly 100% of them survive from leeching off their core city, as the suburban development pattern does not pay for itself) which will all come due simultaneously, as suburbs are generally built all at the same time and therefore things break down at the same time. It's to be expected that all upper and middle class residents will flee around this time, leaving the poor (and the neighborhood) to rot. None of this even touches what will happen if oil prices start going up...
Anyway! That site above has lots of positive bipartisan solutions, and is the only place I have EVER seen where liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists and more come together and respectfully discuss ideas. I recommend you peruse it and feel a little bit better about our country
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370171-trump-imposes-30-tariffs-on-solar-panel-imports This isn't about being aggressive against Chinese business, it's about stepping on the climate change issue. Choking a business that can help step away from fossil fuels.
Solar power is the future and it makes sense to ensure the Chinese can’t kill off domestic production just as the industry starts to take off.
Again not an expert on solar or trade but the article says that "While the action is targeted at imports from China, Trump’s tariffs apply to all imports, since Chinese manufacturers have moved operations to other countries." The tariffs are only temporary and fall off 3 years if I read the article correctly which doesn't strike me as long enough but it seems a good start.
I'm no fan of President Trump but this seems like something that President Clinton would have done as well. Temporary protecting domestic industry against subsidized foreign competitors is something nations are supposed to do.
I doubt Clinton would have done this. Trump and Pruitt aren't champing at the bit to combat climate warming--hell, Pruitt probably sexts oil execs stuff like "spit in my mouth and frack near aquifers daddy" in his office's "Privacy Booth"--and they're not funding and programs that give loans to upstart solar companies, so this was almost certainly done in the name of "lol fuck hippies" + "DRILL BBY DRILL"
Welcome to the Captain Planet Villain administration.
China owns most of the rare earth metal sources needed for solar panels and other electronic components, and the entire electronics component assembly line is based on the East Asian coast.
Putting a tariff on Chinese solar panels means that they will retaliate by raising prices on the rare earth metals and/or components, so all that has been done is make solar economically unviable in the US.
What I think will ultimately happen is that a Chinese company will do the final assembly in some automated factory (subsidized with sweetheart tax cut deals like always) on the West Coast, getting around the tariffs and not really benefiting the US much at all.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Just don't spend a third of a fiscal years revenues on the damn thing. Wisconsin brought in ~$15.5billion in revenues in FY2017, Foxconn is now expected to cost at least $4.5billion (over 10 years) to the tax payers of Wisconsin.
The solar industry has not been investing, and can't keep up with demand.
They just went "well, we can't give a tax break for FOREIGN panels" and stuck the number there.
http://www.solarcity.com/residential/solar-energy-tax-credits-rebates
I remember way back in 7th grade science the teacher while learning how solar power worked told us how it was a pipe dream in the US because of how it was being built in China
How china was already building solar networks in Africa and for itself and how it was basically too late for the US because people are idiots.
I remember this discussion from long ago as I see people installing solar panels and how the local power company will fight you tooth and nail about cutting yourself off the grid
As much as I love to hate on Trump, if Obama had done this Solyndra (the right's favorite example of a failed stimulus project) would probably still be around. Their business model and technology was great, they just couldn't compete with the temporary loss the Chinese government was willing to take on less efficient solar panels in exchange for market dominance. I'm honestly not sure how many manufacturers are left at this point, but it's either tariffs or subsidies.