Biden/Harris significantly strengthened the oil oligarchy. Posing an existential threat to Russia resulted in 3%+ of global diesel use for the war, and eliminates all possibility of Russia cooperating on global warming. Heating fuel high prices (same refining fraction as diesel) helped drive inflation complaints, and Biden/Harris could never suggest ending the war on Russia to fix inflation. Tariffs on solar, batteries, emobility, and EVs are pro-oil oligarchy as well. Steel tariffs are limiting any reindustrialization chances.
Any priority greater than climate sustainability, war and oil profits for example, ensures climate destruction. “Needing” the US to dominate a “slow energy transition” is placing an unnecessary priority above climate sustainability. Trusting the US as an ally ensures climate destruction. Japan and ROK abandonned their renewable energy targets during Biden administration to help US oil oligarchy.
While Trump may try to destroy US clean energy production and adoption, a war on Iran is likely to be divisive, though it is unclear Harris would have stopped it. Very high oil prices from a war on Iran will put the US on the razor’s edge of collapse. Terrorism costs, war expense, inflation, will motivate leveraged dead ender energy investments throughout world, while simultaneously strengthening China/BRICs and demand destruction for FFs.
If there is no war on Iran, and peace in Ukraine, then lower oil prices will stop more US drilling. More US drilling will result in more OPEC production and accelerated price drops that discourage drilling. Like Biden, it is only war that will destroy climate. Trump will strengthen China even more than Biden did. The US is never likely to prioritize climate sustainability over clinging to desperate death throws over its hegemony.
Trump, by accelerating US collapse, will do more for climate sustainability than you think. Individual states and NATO vassals will take more responsibility for global warming.
Sorry, but accelerationism only gets us a lasting fascism. It doesn’t get us the kid of stable world where people can substitute wind and solar for fossil fuels
My point is that the US will always prioritize global domination over climate sustainability. Trump’s first term did include private/state level US mandates for sustainability as a reaction to dooming-fascism. That movement weakened under Biden. Local hope movements are an uphill battle, but still possible.
Nature of US politics, and a popular vote favouring extreme strengthening of oligarchy, can again result in a strong pendulum movement away from climate destruction, but the next zionist/neocon candidate the DNC provides us will not prioritize global cooperation/sustainability any more than Biden did. Either US collapse, or a political movement based on UBI that disempowers the US empire will lead to lower US emissions.
I wouldn’t say that the movement towards state action weakened under Biden; we got some great examples of it, such as the requirement for renewables in Minnesota.
Biden set new records on fossil fuel extractions, refused to ban fracking, and is trying to ban imports of solar panels & EV’s. The Biden wars have also poured a disastrous amount of pollution into the atmosphere, including the spill they intentionally caused with the Nordstream pipeline sabotage.
The election’s over. Stop pretending Biden has been any better besides rhetorically.
We lost the election, but Biden was pretty demonstrably a lot better.
As if Harris would have done something for the climate
She has done something for the climate in the past and unlike Trump actually understands that climate change is real.
I guess the world burning was worth sticking it to Kamala for Gaza.
I guess Gaza being 100% fucked was worth losing the presidency for Democrats.
Well they’ll try. Unfortunately for oil and coal companies, China exists.
Unfortunately, climate action is a collective effort globally. With him being in the pocket of Big Oil, expect no further investment into renewables and increased coal mining, fracking, and oil drilling.
Anyone who cared about climate and voted for him (or abstained/voted third party) basically fucked themselves and everybody else.
Anyone who cared about climate and voted for him
i think that intersection is very small.
Which is why I also included abstainers. Not large groups on their own, but enough to swing an election
As well as changes to the EPA, NOAA, etc. Talking about climate change might become dangerous. Asking for help from FEMA may weigh heavily on how your state voted.
That’s nice, but Americans and American companies can’t afford non renewable energy. Trump needs to triple subsidies over the next 4 years to keep them competitive with renewable energy.
Just a reminder, Trump is not more corrupt or well bribed than Texas, and Texas is one of the largest producers of renewable energy in the Western hemisphere. Money wins over ideology, and there’s a lot more money to be had with solar and wind given the now low upfront costs and nearly non-existent maintenance costs compared to all fossil fuels.
Counterpoint, Alberta exists and low costs benefit the consumer, not the company. I am fully confident that the profit made by oil and gas is significantly more than the tight profit margins in renewables, which means far less money to throw at politicians. Oil and gas can therefore throw much more money at Trump and still be in the black on their ‘investment’, even if you ignore that Trump has deep ideological and political opposition to renewables.
Renewables don’t have tight profit margins, you’re think of nuclear, maybe hydro.
Solar approaches a 100% profit margin after 20 years, wind only ever gets to 90ish but still has the same timeline. Without subsidies, neither oil or coal gets profitable.
No, i’m thinking of solar.
Over decades a solar system will pay back itself many times over, but that’s irrelevant to the question of how big of a money pile can business throw at politicians in the here and now.
That’s determined by the profit margin for companies manufacturing and installing them, which tend to be rather thin given the highly competitive nature of the market. No solar installer anywhere near the profit that oil companies are raking in, and the people owning the panels are usually paying off the loan to install them, using the profits to build more capacity, or saving, not buying off politicians.
Without subsidies there would be far less profit for oil companies, which is exactly why it is so important for them to ‘reinvest’ some of their recent massive profits into continuing and expanding said subsidies and slowing down the adoption of alternatives. Buying off the government with its own money is a benefit since it leaves more for them.
Chinese policy doesn’t give a shit about climate change. In fact, Xi is banking on a Northern passageway to Europe permanently unthawing to avoid the partly US-controlled South China Sea.
Xi cares about staying in power until he drops in the 2030s, for that he neess to keep the country stable and the people quiet. So what he really wants is industrial power and rising welfare. He’s found that one of the best ways to gain an edge that is to spur useful innovation that wealthier nations will want to adopt.
What this means is that we’ll see a lot of climate-friendly technology coming out of China, but the country may not care much about cleaning up its footprint.
Even if you are right I’ll take doing the right thing for the wrong reasons over the fucking disappointment and self destruction coming from the United States.
Doesn’t matter how you spin it, China is objectively better for the world right now.
You can feel morally superior all the way to societal collapse
China is objectively better for the world right now.
lol
ok educate me. On the topic of climate in which ways has (or will) the United States be better? I’d appreciate the optimistic perspective.
Does the argument extend beyond China bad?
ok educate me
here, educate yourself: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20696000-the-hundred-year-marathon
Does the argument extend beyond China bad?
when your argument is “china good”, then “china bad” absolutely is valid rebuttal.
Do you have any real sources, like scientific sources, anything written by someone not intending to get paid massive amounts for their work?
well hello there, chinese intelligence officer.
we in the western civilization are usually getting paid for our work and don’t consider that as discreditation of said work. also, the author of the book, is, among others, researcher at Harvard, so he is the literal scientist.
Michael Pillsbury is the director of the Center on Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and has served in presidential administrations from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Educated at Stanford and Columbia Universities, he is a former analyst at the RAND Corporation and research fellow at Harvard and has served in senior positions in the Defense Department and on the staff of four U.S. Senate committees. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He lives in Washington, D.C.
