Trump Isn’t Leading The Revolution So He Must Follow Or Get Out Of The Way

“Clean, low-cost energy is transforming the U.S. economy. Over the past decade, we’ve seen the payoff from nearly 40 years of federally funded research and development on clean energy. From wind and solar power to electric vehicles and LED lighting, clean energy technologies are dramatically declining in cost and benefiting more homes and businesses—while reducing pollution and creating millions of new American jobs. Clean energy is delivering solutions to help us meet important federal health and environmental safeguards in an increasingly affordable way. The United States must continue to invest in clean energy because today’s technology breakthroughs are building the energy system we need to fight climate change.”
 
See Revolution Now
Chuckle. Trump has commanded Pruitt to order the sea to fall back but that’s not happening. The US economy and many of the US trading partners have committed to clean energy. Costs have come down. Supply has gone up. Demand is skyrocketing. Trump, get out of the way.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in investing, politics, technology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Trump Isn’t Leading The Revolution So He Must Follow Or Get Out Of The Way

  1. Grece says:

    Grece wrote, “when are you going to build that tower solar array?”

    When my Solo is ready,

    SO NEVER!

  2. kurkosdr says:

    That’s too many words just to say “never” Pog, but you are always welcome to enlighten us on the production ramp up of the Solo.

    BTW there are several cars on the market on Solo’s price range, used Leafs and new Chinese bigwheels like the Solo, and Leafs even have airbags and such, but that would mean that in order to buy them you ‘d have to reach to your pocket, fight off those mean crabs and take out your checkbook. Why do that when you can brag about getting your Solo sometime for $fuh-ree?

  3. Grece wrote, “when are you going to build that tower solar array?”

    When my Solo is ready, I plan on extracting funds from my pension account to cover Solo, taxes, insurance, registration, a charging station and the solar setup. The bottom line will be a touch over $30K, what a lot of people pay for a gas-guzzler. I may get a loan to spread the “income” from the pension over two or three years to reduce the effect on income-taxes. I will save about $5K per annum in reduced fuels costs and maintenance so I expect to break even in about five or six years. There won’t be any oil-changes, spark-plug service, coolant service, pump service, valve-timing belt service and all the other $#@!%%$ gas-guzzlers inflict on us. The rest of the lifetime of Solo and the charging system will be gravy. EMV is reluctant or incapable of predicting the delivery date so I expect it will be next winter to make the purchases. I will install the charging system next summer, I guess. This fall, I will reorganize my garage to store all this stuff. It’s all good.

  4. Grece says:

    Speaking of clean energy Robert, when are you going to build that tower solar array?

  5. kurkosdr says:

    That’s nonsense. Every tonne of CO2 displaced by renewable energy is better for the environment in which we live.

    It’s a nice to have sure, but every country is free to put their own financial benefit even short term as a higher priority because many other countries are doing the same. Basically, let the market decide which energy source us cheaper.

  6. Kurkosdr wrote, “The “right thing to do” is irrelevant on a global scale considering the CO2 savings of one country can and will most likely be eclipsed by the CO2 increases of another country due to lack of binding targets”.

    That’s nonsense. Every tonne of CO2 displaced by renewable energy is better for the environment in which we live.

    “Hopes that global emissions had peaked during the past three years were likely premature. However, GCP researchers say that global emissions are unlikely to return to the high growth rates seen during the 2000s. They argue that it is more likely that emissions over the next few years will plateau or only grow slightly, as countries implement their commitments under the Paris Agreement.”

    See Analysis: Global CO2 emissions set to rise 2% in 2017 after three-year ‘plateau’

    We are headed in the right direction. Moderating winters, smaller cars, more EVs and hybrids, and more renewable energy sources all are having effects. A few countries have actually moved from dependence on fossil fuels to renewables in the last few years. e.g. Portugal and others got by without any contribution from fossil fuel for days on end. It’s all good. Even USA is making progress despite Trumpism. Coal is dead. EVs are rampant. Solar and wind are growing like Topsy.

  7. Kurkosdr says:

    “Why” is what makes USA different from other countries.

    Care to provide an answer the “why” for this case? The “right thing to do” is irrelevant on a global scale considering the CO2 savings of one country can and will most likely be eclipsed by the CO2 increases of another country due to lack of binding targets and the fact externalities aren’t assigned to parties responsible, so, why?

  8. kurkosdr wrote, “My point is that since lots of countries prioritize immediate benefit over CO2 reduction (India and many Middle Eastern countries fall into that category), I don’t see why the US should be different.”

    Lots of countries disapprove of X while US approves of X. “Why” is what makes USA different from other countries. It’s about choice. India and China both have a population/energy squeeze but both are investing heavily in renewable energy both because it’s the right thing to do and because it will cost less in the long run. USA should be making the same choices. Fortunately Trumpists don’t speak for everyone in USA and there’s lots of progress like promoting EVs and solar and wind.

  9. kurkosdr says:

    My point is that since lots of countries prioritize immediate benefit over CO2 reduction (India and many Middle Eastern countries fall into that category), I don’t see why the US should be different.

  10. kurkosdr says:

    No one has binding targets. Folks are attempting to exceed targets to limit global warming.

    China is rolling out PV panels at a great rate and continue to reduce use of coal. They have a huge population entering the middle classes so it’s difficult but they are making a great effort, unlike Trump.

    Since nobody has binding targets, aka since externalities are not assigned to the responsible parties at a global level, every country has the right to do what benefits THEM. If China thinks PV panels or whatever benefits them more than coal, because they don’t have an existing install base of coal to milk, more power to them. If the US thinks that milking their coal plants for a bit more benefits them, more power to them too.

  11. Kurkosdr wrote, “why don’t China and India have binding CO2 targets? ”

    No one has binding targets. Folks are attempting to exceed targets to limit global warming.

    See China Making Progress on Climate Goals Faster than Expected

    See also China’s Climate Action Tracker

    “China’s CO2 emissions appear to have peaked more than a decade ahead of its Paris Agreement NDC commitment to peak its CO2 emissions before 2030.”

    China is rolling out PV panels at a great rate and continue to reduce use of coal. They have a huge population entering the middle classes so it’s difficult but they are making a great effort, unlike Trump.

  12. Kurkosdr says:

    It’s in everyone’s interest to do more with less energy electrically.

    If so, why don’t China and India have binding CO2 targets? Why should they put their wallets first and not the US.

  13. Kurkosdr wrote, “why should the government spend taxpayer money to accelerate coal’s inevitable decline? ”

    Easy! It’s in everyone’s interest to do more with less energy electrically. When it comes to changing the basis of the huge energy economy individuals and small organizations can’t do it in a reasonable length of time. Governments previously supported wire communication, roads, railways and pipelines. They should also support grids and renewable/distributed generation.

  14. kurkosdr says:

    Don’t get me wrong, coal will soon become an expensive way to generate electricity, even if factories don’t have to pay a CO2 tax.

    However, why should the government spend taxpayer money to accelerate coal’s inevitable decline? Why should utilities that rely on coal be forced to sell more expensive due to some CO2 tax? It’s not like countries such as China and India have committed to any CO2 targets, so the USA and the US government has every right to also put their wallet first. It’s all goodâ„¢

Leave a Reply