Most of that debt was originated in Middle East conflicts, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the COVID pandemic, and tax cuts for the wealthy. This sounds like a great idea that is cost effective to connect interested folks to efforts, very similar to a startup accelerator's online forum with job listings.
Are there any figures suggesting it will actually be "cost effective"? Neither the White House release or the AP article mentioned the budget for the program, or what employing 20,000 activists would cost.
It's a good question, and I'll have to do some more research to "show my work." If you look at the opportunities available, these all look likes roles that would already exist in various federal agencies (Dept of Energy, USDA, Forest Service, Army Corp of Engineers, FEMA) so I would not run right to "this are 20k net new open roles" but rather a reconfiguration of work distribution and candidate funnel (similar to how US Digital Service ingests technologists and associated folks, weighs and measures, and then distributes throughout government agencies in need of exceptional, motivated talent).
Anyone who complains about the debt and doesn't propose ending the Trump tax cuts isn't serious. Or raising taxes to pay for retirement of Boomers which we've known would need to do for decades.
Also, there is a strong argument that we should be borrowing as much as possible while we can to forego the bigger future expenses of climate change. The US has 1TW of electric generation capacity; borrowing $2T to build wind and solar would be very good investment.
Job training and energy investments tend to have a positive payback on gdp, which is typically how government debt is viewed.
Solar installers help prepare the power grid for more solar, HVACs, and more electric car production, small local battery backups which hopefully with the inflation reduction act incentives are produced domestically. (Consider the damage from California and Hawaiian utility related infrastructure fires as another way an updated grid helps)
Reducing oil and gas needs for domestic energy production facilities increases oil exports.
I recall the US Federal Corp for Solar Energy, because a young colleague (at the time) went to a year of training for it. However, once the training was done and he was a year older (and paid?) new President Ronald Reagan cut it completely in his first acts when elected.
Nobody was worried about national debt when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The fact that we cannot solve the climate crisis by dropping bombs on bad guys doesn't make it any less of an existential threat.
The level of debt we have is fine, and we could have a lot more and still be fine. The idea that the debt is a number worth minimizing is just bad economics.
Your confusion is most likely your expectation that anybody is trying to resolve “the debt”. Instead, you’re demonstrating that it’s an endlessly useful political talking point. See you next time.
I definitely agree that the solution to this tragedy-of-the-commons problem is going to come from the government. It's the only entity big enough to coordinate and muscle solutions into place, and it also has a responsibility beyond financial profit.
groups of villagers taking too much oil each season? and distributing it with networks of refineries and filling stations.. "tragedy of the commons" does not adequately describe the context in 2023
That term has been used for negative externalities of industrial practices for many decades. In fact, according to Wikipedia, "the commons problem is one of the ten most common system archetypes." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_archetype#Tragedy_of_th...)
Still, I think I agree with you that the villagers are not the level to look for a solution.
Competing with the other 70 year old programs like tax incentives on oil exploration or monopolies for power companies.
Some power companies with government granted monopolies have an additional fee or have no net metering programs available for solar installs. Entrenched by the same politicians simultaneously saying our grid can't support the future the car companies are developing.
If the government does nothing, the free market has no incentive to care about climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend is probably the least invasive solution, as the government 'just' puts a price on carbon and lets the market find the cheapest ways to avoid it.
Comments in here are not what I was expecting at all.
I was expecting to hear the zeitgeist of Gen-Z climate doomerism that it doesn't matter what everyday people do (recycle, drive less) and pollution is entirely the fault of billionaires and corporations.
Not to dismiss the hard work of billionaires and corporations in destroying the planet but I do get annoyed with thinking everyone else is off the hook for a solution or the consequences of their actions.
10% of the richest have about the same energy carbon footprint as the other 90% of people [0]. So an average person within the top 10% emits 9x more than an average in the 90%. Call it doomerism, get annoyed, etc - these are the facts.
We could regulate the emissions of the billionaires and corporations who have the resources to go carbon-neutral, and reach the 1.5C target just with that. Or yeah, the whole rest of the world could recycle, cycle instead of using a car, go with rail instead of air travel, reuse, buy ethical premium products, heat less in the Winter, AC less in the Summer, and I'm sure we'll get part of the way to 1.5C. If only everyone would do their part, we could save the rich the trouble!
Being climate-conscious is important, but it's a very weak climate change lever to pull for the 90% of us. Let's not pretend it isn't, in light of all the evidence to the contrary.
For reference, 90th percentile income globally is about $19,300 USD per year according to [0]. If you're in the top 10% by income, it's likely that you're also in the top 10% by emissions.
The 10% "richest" people in the world actually includes a lot of pretty poor folks who, in their respective countries, are barely making rent and probably drive a beater car to their crappy job. Even the 1% global "richest" is a salary of $60k-80k in the US. Which, while providing a comfortable lifestyle, is not a pay grade associated with private jets and yacht parties. You dress it up as class warfare against the rich but nothing could be further from the truth.
These are the actual facts so yes, I will get annoyed with a false excuse that we're all off the hook for our own actions "because of the rich".
I’m in the 10% and I think if we were required to go more carbon-neutral, there would be businesses to service that need economically at our income.
Carbon recapture businesses are already available and the costs are already down to the point where someone earning $50k or so can comfortably buy some offsets, just not their complete offset. That will come, I believe.
I’d be happy with an outcome where we are more regulated, and I think climate change needs to be solved, and the top 10% is most capable.
There’s no class warfare here. Just facts. The top 10%, myself and many readers of HN inclusive, can move the needle more than most.
Here's your sidebar comment that you were possibly also expecting, that climate change is only the cherry on the top.
Soil exhaustion, salination and erosion, fossil aquifer depletion, rainforest (biodiversity) destruction, and general forest destruction, hunting pachyderms and large cats to extinction, followed by most other large wild animals and birds, extermination of ocean fish via overfishing, pollution with microplastics, pesticides, etc., etc., death of coral reefs via Nobel fishing (dynamite),mountain-top removal mining, mine tailing pollution, and on and on... climate change is just the cherry on the top, really. The mint wafer at the end of Mr. Creosote's dinner.
HN has official moderators, though only one person who comments directly within threads, dang. I'm not a moderator or staff, just a somewhat-too-active participant.
And as dang freely notes, mods don't see everything: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37225175>. HN depends on community members establishing and communicating standards, not just official mods.
Dang occasionally thanks members for pointing out guidelines to others, so I'm presuming my practice is acceptable: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37602788> (The appreciation is often couched in terms of how to better accomplish the task, as here, but the key is "thanks for watching out for the HN guidelines".
I'm not telling you to keep your mouth shut. I'm telling you what HN's guidelines are. Which are generally helpful to heed to participate constructively with the forum, one of the best on today's Internet.
If you've additional concerns, you can email mods at hn@ycombinator.com. I've found they're responsive, patient, and clear, even where I disagree with them considerably or have complex concerns.
"Don't overrate sincerity. The most sincere person you'll meet in your life is the maniac chasing you down the road with an axe trying to chop your head off."
-- Anonymous university instructor, via Steve Keen
Could've done something like -- DoD[1], no more fossil fuels, you have 5 years to get off. This would've spurred innovation and put America at the forefront of all energy breakthroughs. Like, Silicon Valley: http://www.infocobuild.com/education/public-lectures/enginee...
Or could've put Corps of Engineers to work. The US Army Corps of Engineers built lots of infrastructure. I'm sure they can deploy solar and wind faster and cheaper than anyone else. They've done lots of projects for water, why isn't energy thought of in the same way?
Germany is putting up solar panels along autobanh[3]. No reason Army Corps of Engineers can't do the same on US Highways. Federal Govt owns this land, land is all clear and ready to go, no pesky issues of working with landowners.
[1]"The US Department of Defense is also the single largest institutional fossil fuel user in the world. Since 2001, the military has been responsible for 77 to 80 percent of federal energy consumption": https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/pentagon-cli...
42 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] thread"After being thwarted by Congress, President Joe Biden will use his executive authority to create a New Deal-style American Climate Corps"
which means there is no new spending here.
Also, there is a strong argument that we should be borrowing as much as possible while we can to forego the bigger future expenses of climate change. The US has 1TW of electric generation capacity; borrowing $2T to build wind and solar would be very good investment.
Solar installers help prepare the power grid for more solar, HVACs, and more electric car production, small local battery backups which hopefully with the inflation reduction act incentives are produced domestically. (Consider the damage from California and Hawaiian utility related infrastructure fires as another way an updated grid helps)
Reducing oil and gas needs for domestic energy production facilities increases oil exports.
groups of villagers taking too much oil each season? and distributing it with networks of refineries and filling stations.. "tragedy of the commons" does not adequately describe the context in 2023
Still, I think I agree with you that the villagers are not the level to look for a solution.
Some power companies with government granted monopolies have an additional fee or have no net metering programs available for solar installs. Entrenched by the same politicians simultaneously saying our grid can't support the future the car companies are developing.
I was expecting to hear the zeitgeist of Gen-Z climate doomerism that it doesn't matter what everyday people do (recycle, drive less) and pollution is entirely the fault of billionaires and corporations.
Not to dismiss the hard work of billionaires and corporations in destroying the planet but I do get annoyed with thinking everyone else is off the hook for a solution or the consequences of their actions.
We could regulate the emissions of the billionaires and corporations who have the resources to go carbon-neutral, and reach the 1.5C target just with that. Or yeah, the whole rest of the world could recycle, cycle instead of using a car, go with rail instead of air travel, reuse, buy ethical premium products, heat less in the Winter, AC less in the Summer, and I'm sure we'll get part of the way to 1.5C. If only everyone would do their part, we could save the rich the trouble!
Being climate-conscious is important, but it's a very weak climate change lever to pull for the 90% of us. Let's not pretend it isn't, in light of all the evidence to the contrary.
[0] https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-world-s-top-1-of-emitte...
[0] https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i?income=...
These are the actual facts so yes, I will get annoyed with a false excuse that we're all off the hook for our own actions "because of the rich".
Carbon recapture businesses are already available and the costs are already down to the point where someone earning $50k or so can comfortably buy some offsets, just not their complete offset. That will come, I believe.
I’d be happy with an outcome where we are more regulated, and I think climate change needs to be solved, and the top 10% is most capable.
There’s no class warfare here. Just facts. The top 10%, myself and many readers of HN inclusive, can move the needle more than most.
Soil exhaustion, salination and erosion, fossil aquifer depletion, rainforest (biodiversity) destruction, and general forest destruction, hunting pachyderms and large cats to extinction, followed by most other large wild animals and birds, extermination of ocean fish via overfishing, pollution with microplastics, pesticides, etc., etc., death of coral reefs via Nobel fishing (dynamite),mountain-top removal mining, mine tailing pollution, and on and on... climate change is just the cherry on the top, really. The mint wafer at the end of Mr. Creosote's dinner.
Following guidelines will tend to help you reach the (low) threshold more quickly.
Meantime, there are thousands of HN readers who do have that capability. Not feeding trolls is the significant bit here.
And as dang freely notes, mods don't see everything: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37225175>. HN depends on community members establishing and communicating standards, not just official mods.
Dang occasionally thanks members for pointing out guidelines to others, so I'm presuming my practice is acceptable: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37602788> (The appreciation is often couched in terms of how to better accomplish the task, as here, but the key is "thanks for watching out for the HN guidelines".
I'm not telling you to keep your mouth shut. I'm telling you what HN's guidelines are. Which are generally helpful to heed to participate constructively with the forum, one of the best on today's Internet.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>
And you'll find that "don't feed the trolls" is an rather common moderator request, with 284 instances at this writing: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>
If you've additional concerns, you can email mods at hn@ycombinator.com. I've found they're responsive, patient, and clear, even where I disagree with them considerably or have complex concerns.
Another useful guideline to keep in mind: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35403096>
-- Anonymous university instructor, via Steve Keen
<http://yewtu.be/watch?v=7F2FKxxN_IE&t=8m1s> (timepoint: 08:01)
Or could've put Corps of Engineers to work. The US Army Corps of Engineers built lots of infrastructure. I'm sure they can deploy solar and wind faster and cheaper than anyone else. They've done lots of projects for water, why isn't energy thought of in the same way?
Germany is putting up solar panels along autobanh[3]. No reason Army Corps of Engineers can't do the same on US Highways. Federal Govt owns this land, land is all clear and ready to go, no pesky issues of working with landowners.
[1]"The US Department of Defense is also the single largest institutional fossil fuel user in the world. Since 2001, the military has been responsible for 77 to 80 percent of federal energy consumption": https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/pentagon-cli...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Corps_of_En...
[3]https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/04/11/german-highway-pv-cou...