Post New

Republicans are attacking EVs. At the same time, some key states are reaping a lot of benefits from EVs (jobs, etc). This could be a problem from Reps in those states.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/2024-republican-e...

How well are EV's selling?
And are you sure it's just Republicans attacking them?

https://carbuzz.com/news/dealerships-across-americ...

A group of nearly 4,000 dealerships are petitioning to change President Joe Biden's electric car ambitions and want to see "unrealistic" federal regulations re-evaluated. They believe it would force customers into buying vehicles they do not want.

The large group of automotive retailers represent different brands and addressed their concerns to President Biden in a letter sent on Tuesday. This comes after the Biden administration and the Environmental Protection Agency announced in April that they plan to introduce stricter emissions legislation by 2027.

Look at the accompanying map. There are 114 car dealerships in Massafreakingchusetts on the list. Are they all Republicans?

Or how about these guys:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dem-govern...
Democratic Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont is withdrawing his plan to mandate future electric vehicle (EV) purchases after the proposal received bipartisan pushback from lawmakers on a key legislative panel.

Lamont ultimately pulled the proposal just four months after unveiling it and characterizing it as "decisive action to meet our climate pollution reduction targets." In July, Lamont unveiled the proposal, tethering Connecticut's emissions standards to those set in California, which mandates that every passenger vehicle sold is electric by 2035, the most aggressive target of its kind nationwide.

What kind of pushback?
https://ctmirror.org/2023/11/27/ct-gas-car-ban-reg...
A majority of the legislature’s Regulation Review Committee was poised to vote Tuesday to kill regulations prohibiting new gasoline-powered vehicle sales by 2035, forcing advocates and the administration of Gov. Ned Lamont to open talks on a new plan for passage by the full General Assembly in 2024.

Jonathan Dach, the governor’s chief of staff, said Monday that the administration reluctantly made the decision to withdraw the regulations after being told that opponents on the bipartisan committee had the votes to kill them and not merely reject them without prejudice, an action that would allow a later attempt at passage.

“The choice open to us is let them be killed or pull them,” Dach said. “We will pull them.”

“I was very hopeful we could get ‘rejection without prejudice’ so we could carry on the discussions,” said Rep. Lucy Dathan, D-New Canaan, the committee co-chair, after briefing Dach. “It’s disappointing.”

But why? Why are so many people pushing back on EVs?
Because they're not ready for prime time.
https://money.com/why-americans-not-buying-electri...

In just the last few weeks, EV leader Tesla slashed its prices once again; Ford reduced production of its F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck and postponed $12 billion of EV spending; Mercedes-Benz CFO Harald Wilhelm described the EV market as a “brutal space” as the company continues to discount vehicles; General Motors delayed three model launches and backed off a public goal of producing 400,000 EVs by the middle of next year; and Honda announced it was ending plans with GM to jointly develop affordable EVs.

Over at Toyota, which has prioritized hybrids over EVs, Chairman Akio Toyoda told reporters that “people are finally seeing reality.” Despite EV tax credits of up to $7,500, fewer Americans are ready to switch to EVs than automakers or government officials thought.

Then there's the China effect.
https://apnews.com/article/michigan-recall-electio...
Voters remove 5 Michigan officials who support Chinese-owned factory for electric vehicle batteries

GREEN TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) — Voters in a Michigan community removed five local officials in a recall election fueled by opposition to a Chinese company’s plan to make components for electric vehicle batteries.

The Green Township supervisor, clerk, treasurer and two trustees — all Republicans — were defeated Tuesday by challengers who listed no party affiliation.

“This recall shows how the community did not want this,” recall advocate Lori Brock told The Detroit News, referring to the factory. “This just means we have a voice again.”

Dealers don't like them for a few reasons. First, you have Tesla that does not rely on dealers. Second, EVs require very little maintenance. Most dealers make most of their money on the service end.

I'm sure it's not only Reps. But if you read the article, there are key swing states that are benefiting from EV. So campaigning against that is campaigning against peoples' jobs. Never a good idea, unless it is a dying industry.

I'm sure it's not only Reps. But if you read the article, there are key swing states that are benefiting from EV. So campaigning against that is campaigning against peoples' jobs.

----------------

The prison of two ideas.

Build EV's or be unemployed.

A third alternative would to be remain employed building vehicles that people actually want to buy without being forced to by a powerful government.

I'm sure it's not only Reps. But if you read the article, there are key swing states that are benefiting from EV. So campaigning against that is campaigning against peoples' jobs. Never a good idea, unless it is a dying industry.

Perhaps - but a lot more people buy cars than make them. And since EV's require fewer workers than conventional ICE's, that's even more true of EV's. The anti-EV pitch is that consumers are somehow harmed if manufacturers are forced to move away from ICE's and make EV's instead.

This is in line with the GOP's general complaint that Green regulation helps Democratic constituencies at the expense of other folks. In that telling, forcing the auto industry to shift away from EV's makes a small group of people (those in the EV business) better off, but makes a much larger group of people (those in the ICE business and new-car purchasers, if EV's are mandated) worse off.

Not a lot of meat on those bones, but probably enough to deflect criticism in places where new investment has been announced, but there aren't any actual new jobs yet.

No one is being forced. At least not yet. CA is looking to be all EV sometime before 2040. A lot can happen in 16 years. Most other states have no such goal or intention. And the feds have no such law or rule or plan. And such would never pass Congress for the foreseeable future. So have no fear...you can buy your hydrocarbon sludge burner that is fueling catastrophic climate change**.




**I've already accepted that is going to happen. Too much inertia, too much resistance to change, too much denial, too much money, etc. Nothing can stop it now.

Dealers don't like them for a few reasons. First, you have Tesla that does not rely on dealers. Second, EVs require very little maintenance. Most dealers make most of their money on the service end.

Dealers don't like them because they're flat out not selling very many of them. And unlike gas cars, the batteries have shelf lives.

I'm sure it's not only Reps. But if you read the article, there are key swing states that are benefiting from EV. So campaigning against that is campaigning against peoples' jobs. Never a good idea, unless it is a dying industry.

But your point was that the voters would punish the GOP for being skeptical of EV cars. However, if you look at the Michigan battery factory, a number of Republican elected officials lost their jobs because they were in *favor* of it.

Nothing can stop it now.

Except the reality that the biggest beneficiary today of a shift toward EVs...

...is China.

Who supplies all the production inputs for batteries and electric motors?

No one is being forced. At least not yet. CA is looking to be all EV sometime before 2040. A lot can happen in 16 years.

Since these types of conversions take a long time, "not yet" still makes it's way forward in time. If CA sets a policy that all new vehicles have to be EV's in 2035, that's going to have an impact on investments and manufacturing decisions today. It's not going to take 11 years for the effects to start being seen, and affecting the options available to consumers. As you might expect, automakers are devoting a lot more of their long term investments into plants and research into EV's, not ICE's.

I've already accepted that is going to happen. Too much inertia, too much resistance to change, too much denial, too much money, etc. Nothing can stop it now.

We're not going to have catastrophic climate change. Or at least, not catastrophic to us in the U.S. and other OECD countries. We will almost certainly have 2.2-2.7 C increases in temps....but while that will be bad for a lot of people in a lot of places, it's not likely to be all that terrible for us here in the U.S.

We're not going to have catastrophic climate change. Or at least, not catastrophic to us in the U.S. and other OECD countries. We will almost certainly have 2.2-2.7 C increases in temps....but while that will be bad for a lot of people in a lot of places, it's not likely to be all that terrible for us here in the U.S.

The Earth's climate goes through cycles regardless of what we do. The sun itself sees to that. Can mankind speed up something? Sure. But climate models disagree on what the magnitude is (it won't be 2.2, probably half that if at all).

And it won't be catastrophic because...human beings can actually adapt.

But climate models disagree on what the magnitude is (it won't be 2.2, probably half that if at all)

We're already at half that - average global temperatures are about 1 degree over pre-industrial levels, at least as of 2017.

The Earth's climate goes through cycles regardless of what we do. The sun itself sees to that. Can mankind speed up something? Sure.

And it won't be catastrophic because...human beings can actually adapt.

You know those cycles the Earth's climate goes through regardless? Some of them were grade A catastrophic guy. We adapted, but we had lines die off - failure to adapt. We won't be as bad off as Central America - we think. But if the snowpack fails in the Rockies and the West further desertifies - we're pretty fucked. So I cross my fingers, but I also won't be here. ;P

Yeah, I think it's more than that now (6 years later). What I'm hearing from the climate science community is that we have 2C baked-in (no pun intended), and given that we aren't doing close to enough to stop the trend, we'll hit at least 2.2-2.3C within the century.

As I said, I've already realized that we aren't going to do anything. And as you said, the US will survive it (most likely). Though there may have to be migrations, coastal cities almost certainly will have to be walled-off from the sea, the US Navy is already moving one of their bases inland in anticipation (I think it was in Virginia?). It's not gonna be cheap. Building walls around Miami, L.A., NYC, etc, will be very expensive.

The mass refugee problem from other nations will be a challenge. If LM is screaming about migrants now...just wait. I think 1/3 of Bangladesh will be underwater (at least at high tide) by the end of the century.

It's gonna be a mess, and our grandchildren will curse us.

You know those cycles the Earth's climate goes through regardless? Some of them were grade A catastrophic guy. We adapted, but we had lines die off - failure to adapt. We won't be as bad off as Central America - we think. But if the snowpack fails in the Rockies and the West further desertifies - we're pretty fucked. So I cross my fingers, but I also won't be here. ;P

Ahh, I see.
So the level of technology doesn't exist to say, move people inland a mile or so? Everyone will just drown along with the polar bears?

The snowpack. Hmm. What to do.
Do you know of a way to somehow magically separate salt from the ocean's water? Has anyone ever invented a way to do that before?

It's not gonna be cheap. Building walls around Miami, L.A., NYC, etc, will be very expensive.

The mass refugee problem from other nations will be a challenge. If LM is screaming about migrants now...just wait. I think 1/3 of Bangladesh will be underwater (at least at high tide) by the end of the century.

It's gonna be a mess, and our grandchildren will curse us.

Who knows?

After all, very few of us are going around cursing the Industrial Revolution. Many of us grateful that our world has a vastly better standard of living and technological level than it would have had if our forebears had refrained from polluting the world and burning fossil fuels. The hardships that would need to be borne to prevent climate change altogether - even to limit us to 1.5C - would be severe and significant. Our grandchildren may be perfectly fine with the choices we make today.

Especially if we use the metaphorical "us" - meaning humanity in general. Thinking our grandchildren will curse us for not stopping climate change is a luxury of the developed world, for whom further development brings more luxuries, not an escape from poverty. The generations of people born in China and India over the next few decades will not lament the choices that made them some of the world's largest emitters. It will suck to be in a warmer world, but (for them) much better than than the world of the 1970's where they would expect to be born into (and die in) subsistence agriculture and absolute poverty.

Perhaps. A lot of people (probably even the majority) are going to have their lives shattered. The poor can't afford to move. Even if they own their little piece of land, they won't be able to sell it and buy something where it isn't swamped by an ocean, or desertified by lack of rain. Sure...albaby's-babies-babies should be just fine leaving Miami.

In the past, they said oil was cheaper. Even now, a lot of people say it. But I think in the long term, it will be more expensive because of all that will have to be done to adapt to the warmer world.

Of course, that excludes coal. Though we can actually use scrubbers to deal with coal emissions. People fight that, too, as "too expensive". Building a sea wall around Manhattan (I doubt that city is going to move) will be hideously expensive.**


**Though look on the bright side...JOBS! And the raised taxes to pay for the workers to build and maintain that seawall.

Ahh, I see.
So the level of technology doesn't exist to say, move people inland a mile or so? Everyone will just drown along with the polar bears?

There you are - off on the wrong track again. No, we don't have technology capable of diverting atmospheric rivers to where we want them. We can build irrigation aqueducts, but we don't direct the whether. The desertification of the West is a low confidence area - we don't know what is going to happen. It can be a sever problem if we don't have enough water to fill the aqueducts. So



The snowpack. Hmm. What to do.
Do you know of a way to somehow magically separate salt from the ocean's water? Has anyone ever invented a way to do that before?

Science does that, and , AFAIK it's expensive for crops. No, I think we may have major shifts in population within the US northward, and Canada's bleak regions may become popular as they warm. There will be continued migration from Latin America as areas desertify there. So there may be hardships, extreme hardships to go through in the West and West Coast. We'll adapt, but there may be an awful lot of pain and hardship, which I'd prefer everyone avoided. But I won't be there.

If the Gulf Stream stops pumping, we lose 3 feet or more on the North East coast, and we can deal, it's just a PITA. But if farms become impractical in areas and we can't solve it - dustbowl time.

There you are - off on the wrong track again. No, we don't have technology capable of diverting atmospheric rivers to where we want them. We can build irrigation aqueducts, but we don't direct the weather. The desertification of the West is a low confidence area - we don't know what is going to happen. It can be a sever problem if we don't have enough water to fill the aqueducts. So

This has zilch to do with what I posted. Try again, with more attempts at substance and less with ineffective snark.

Science does that, and , AFAIK it's expensive for crops.

I see. “Science” does it.
There’s going to be a massive shortage of water on a planet where 2/3rds of it is…water.
Sigh.

Actually, there is.

Desalinization is expensive. And pretty much only available on coasts (where there are oceans). Kansas is pretty much screwed if they don't get rain, and the rivers run low (or dry-up).

And none of that water will be directed to ecosystems, which could collapse, which will have an effect on us, as well. It's all connected. We are not apart from this world, we are a part of it. If we damage it, we get hurt, too.

The mass refugee problem from other nations will be a challenge. If LM is screaming about migrants now...just wait. I think 1/3 of Bangladesh will be underwater (at least at high tide) by the end of the century.

It's ironic that so many of the immigrant haters are also climate change deniers, not realizing that climate change disruptions will lead to more desperate migrants.

It's ironic that so many of the immigrant haters

-----------------

FIFY

It's ironic that so many of the illegal immigrant haters

Actually the revision is a poor description. It's not that the illegals are hated, it is that we cannot accommodate 100% of those who wish to immigrate here. If we cannot take them all, then we need to establish a system to actually control and limit who can come here. Heck we cannot even keep out those who have been deported multiple times. We can discuss whatever filters need to applied at the border, but without an effective filter, the discussion is academic.

Finish the Wall!

Perhaps. A lot of people (probably even the majority) are going to have their lives shattered. The poor can't afford to move. Even if they own their little piece of land, they won't be able to sell it and buy something where it isn't swamped by an ocean, or desertified by lack of rain. Sure...albaby's-babies-babies should be just fine leaving Miami.

Perhaps, but a lot of people (possibly even the majority) would have their lives shattered if we implemented the steps necessary in order to actually keep temps below 1.5 C. The poor can't afford to move - which means that if you adopt policies that disrupt their precarious current situation, it's devastation for them. To use a current example, the mayor of London may lose his position in large part because of his support for the expansion of the Ultra Low Emissions Zone - because a lot of poor people can't afford to pay that fee, can't afford to buy a low-emitting vehicle, and can't afford to change their lives so that neither is necessary:

https://www.politico.eu/article/london-mayor-sadiq...

And that's a miniscule, single, and utterly marginal policy implemented in a single city (albeit a big one). The actual range of policy proposals necessary to fight climate change would have a much broader effect on poor people.

It's absolutely true that one answer is to have the government help the poor people out, which is frequently noted as part of Green proposals. But the same is true of living with climate change - if the poor can't afford to move, have the government help pay for them to move, the same way the government would (and is) helping some (but not all) Londoners try to get into more efficient cars that they can't otherwise afford.

Desal--- Science does that, and , AFAIK it's expensive for crops.

And.. it's incredibly energy intensive. The hotter the climate, the more heat we create making energy to cope with the heat. De-sal plants, air conditioned buildings and vehicles... it's a vicious circle.

Reducing consumption is the only hope, but nobody wants to give up their vaulted ceilings, monster SUVS and trucks, 105" color TVs, air conditioning, lawns. Builders continue to build mini-mansions with lush landscaping.

Transporting seasonal fresh produce back and forth between northern and southern continents.... astoundingly energy intensive. Transporting meat back and forth for processing between cheap labor continents and expensive labor continents.... incredibly energy intensive.

Poorguy is probably right. Doing all that stuff for an overpopulated planet while clutching pearls is simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

There’s going to be a massive shortage of water on a planet where 2/3rds of it is…water.

Pure trolling from a guy who claims to have numerous scholarly degrees.

There's no point in typing - again - the increasing issues resulting from water crises.

Like LM, he simply blames the global POTABLE water issues, desertification, ecosystem failures, on "the left."

ME: There you are - off on the wrong track again. No, we don't have technology capable of diverting atmospheric rivers to where we want them. We can build irrigation aqueducts, but we don't direct the weather. The desertification of the West is a low confidence area - we don't know what is going to happen. It can be a sever problem if we don't have enough water to fill the aqueducts. So

Dope: This has zilch to do with what I posted. Try again, with more attempts at substance and less with ineffective snark.

Me: Sorry, you don't control the threads and we are allowed to point out where you are short sighted and don't understand what's at stake because of your adherence to trivializing a grave situation.

Me: Science does that, and , AFAIK it's expensive for crops.

I see. “Science” does it.
There’s going to be a massive shortage of water on a planet where 2/3rds of it is…water.
Sigh.

Is there a massive shortage of water in the Sahara? OK, we'll just give you a canteen of water, parachute you in, and see how well you do. Reality TV showtime! All you have to do to get water is to say, "Trump is an @sshole" three times and click you heels.

Wait! We'll have you put up a desalinization rig out there and desalinate your own ocean water! That's the ticket. Just find the ocean first.

We can discuss whatever filters need to applied at the border, but without an effective filter, the discussion is academic. Finish the Wall!

Building a wall does nothing to stop mass migrations. A wall does not address the root causes of environmental crises.

A wall is merely a finger in a leaky dike.

"Human Smuggling Attempts by Sea Triple Along San Diego County Coastline"

Whether it's the Pacific, Atlantic or Mediterranean, a wall will not stop the flow of people on boats.

Desperate people will not stop attempting the migration away from desperate situations, even as hundreds die trying to cross the water.

If I had a dollar for every migrant panga I've seized and demolished for the DHS.... wait.... I do! And what we intercept is the tip of the iceberg. We've tried more intensive patrols on water, drone patrols, landside lookouts. They keep coming.

So keep electing those Christian wall-building warriors. Turn America into an anti-abortion, anti-contraception powerhouse. Spread that good word to the south; go forth and multiply!

It's absolutely true that one answer is to have the government help the poor people out, which is frequently noted as part of Green proposals. But the same is true of living with climate change - if the poor can't afford to move, have the government help pay for them to move, the same way the government would (and is) helping some (but not all) Londoners try to get into more efficient cars that they can't otherwise afford.

Konstantin Kisin in his speech at Oxford summed it up nearly perfectly: Paraphrasing, he said that there are some 120 million people in China suffering from malnourishment and another 20% (I don't remember the number, just that it's very large) of children in India are malnourished with dysfunctional immune systems.

His exact quote was:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo&ab_cha...

The part about outhouses is also spot on:


120 million people in China do not have enough food...they suffer from malnutrition...that means that their immune system is breaking down. You're not going to get them to stay poor.

Imagine you're Xi Jinping, the leader of China. When you're 10 years old there was a revolution in your country, a cultural revolution and people came and they put your father in prison. Your mother had to denounce him. Your sister killed herself. And you, no longer enjoying the protection of your formerly powerful father, were sent to live in a village where you lived in a cave house.

And here you are decades later: you have clawed your way up the bloody and greasy pole of Chinese politics to be the undisputed supreme leader of the very Communist party that destroyed your family. And you know that the main thing you have to do to survive and stay in power is to deliver the one thing that the people of China want:

Prosperity. Economic growth.

Where do you think climate change ranks on Xi Jinping's list of priorities?

The answer, of course, is dead last.

Me: Sorry, you don't control the threads and we are allowed to point out where you are short sighted and don't understand what's at stake because of your adherence to trivializing a grave situation.

Okay, got it. You can unload all the snark you want in ways that have zero to do with what somebody actually said Because Muh Cause.

Sure thing, homie.

Climate change is a emotionally charged subject that's filled with lots of fascinating areas to discuss but for some, it's a quasi-religion and they're neither able to process nuance or understand any of the basic science behind what's going on. Thus they lash out in fairly predictable and juvenile ways, as you have.

Good luck with that. Just don't hide under you bed *all* day.

I'll leave you with this to ponder. You won't, but that's on you:

120 million people in China do not have enough food...they suffer from malnutrition...that means that their immune system is breaking down. You're not going to get them to stay poor.

Imagine you're Xi Jinping, the leader of China. When you're 10 years old there was a revolution in your country, a cultural revolution and people came and they put your father in prison. Your mother had to denounce him. Your sister killed herself. And you, no longer enjoying the protection of your formerly powerful father, were sent to live in a village where you lived in a cave house.

And here you are decades later: you have clawed your way up the bloody and greasy pole of Chinese politics to be the undisputed supreme leader of the very Communist party that destroyed your family. And you know that the main thing you have to do to survive and stay in power is to deliver the one thing that the people of China want:

Prosperity. Economic growth.

Where do you think climate change ranks on Xi Jinping's list of priorities?

"Perhaps, but a lot of people (possibly even the majority) would have their lives shattered if we implemented the steps necessary in order to actually keep temps below 1.5 C."

But Albaby, a lot of people's lives are currently having their lives shattered by desertification, rising sea levels, intensifying weather extremes.

It's just not people 'we' really care about yet. It only impacts us because "those people's migration" is exacting a financial and sociological toll on our lives.

We haven't had to build compounds, walls around our homes, with shattered glass embedded in the cement top-cap...yet.

OK, we'll just give you a canteen of water, parachute you in, and see how well you do. Reality TV showtime!

Heck, give him 2 canteens, but fill them with saltwater because he knows "Science".

But Albaby, a lot of people's lives are currently having their lives shattered by desertification, rising sea levels, intensifying weather extremes.

Sure. There's consequences to rising temperatures. That doesn't mean that there aren't consequences to the policy measures that would be sufficient to actually, meaningfully affect rising temperatures. Part of the reason that you're seeing an anti-Green backlash as part of populist movements in Europe is because voters are unhappy with the costs of those policies...and European leaders are reacting to that, since they don't want a repeat of the Gillet-Jaune protests.

https://www.politico.eu/article/cop28-climate-summ...

The costs of policies to fight climate change are politically palatable while those policies were weak enough, unambitious enough to be largely ineffective - the lowest (and smallest) hanging fruits. But as governments move, or try to move, into policies that might actually work, the impacts are more visible and painful to voters. Which is why you're seeing pushback to them.

But Albaby, a lot of people's lives are currently having their lives shattered by desertification, rising sea levels, intensifying weather extremes. - sano

---------------------

Two suggestions - stop having more children when you don't have enough food and water for the ones you already have. If your life is being shattered where you are, move somewhere else on your own if possible or with government assistance.

BUT, and this is important, you do not have a god given right to stay right where are for eternity and mandate the government to fight a futile battle with climate so that may do so.

There's consequences to rising temperatures. That doesn't mean that there aren't consequences to the policy measures that would be sufficient to actually, meaningfully affect rising temperatures.


There are 2 kinds of consequences.

The haves suffer a financial impact. We must pay more for things that are, let's face it, unattainable luxuries for the have-nots. Many of us will have to do without those niceties/luxuries.

How will we exist without our Keurig coffee pods, DeLonghi espresso machines and dual-fuel pizza oven? What will life be like if mid-winter fruit imported from South America to North America triples in price?
How will wealthy Chicagoans survive without fresh Hawaiian papaya?

Some of us will not have to do without.
https://montecito-realestate.com/listings

The have-nots, otoh, suffer dire physical impacts -the loss of life's basic necessities- which I do not need to relist.

Policy is made by the wealthy, and the wealthy want to hang on to the good life at all costs. It's our birthright. We can prove that, by percentages, mankind is consuming more, and that must be a good thing even if in actual numbers, more people are floundering.

In the meantime, life is good.

Finish the Wall!

You can't 'finish the wall'. It's not possible without ludicrous cost and immense damage. JUST STUPID! But the MAGAs still think it is really a viable solution.

The only thing the stupid wall accomplished was to fool the gullible MAGAs into believing that Trump was actually accomplishing something. NO, he did not. He wasted billions on an idiotic idea that experts said would be a waste of money.

This is from the right leaning CATO institute.

The Border Wall Didn’t Work

One of former President Donald Trump’s main presidential accomplishments was constructing hundreds of miles of wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. President Joe Biden temporarily suspended work on some unfinished sections in January 2021, but is now plugging some “holes” in Trump’s wall and adding some other portions. He shouldn’t bother. A few miles won’t fix what hundreds of miles already failed to. It’s time to just admit: Trump’s wall did not work.

https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-didnt-work

Two suggestions - stop having more children when you don't have enough food and water for the ones you already have.

Excellent idea.

Will you now vote for candidates that support Planned Parenthood, and organizations that promote Planned Parenthood type organizations in countries where we represent a dominant part of their economies; banana republics, for example?

Will you oppose politicians who insist women must not have sex unless they want to get pregnant?

Or will you continue to vote for the autocrats supported by theocrats?

See those caravans of impoverished people streaming from Africa to Europe.... from South America to North America?
They're just people who do what people do. Eat, sleep, have sex, pop out babies.

It's no secret that poor women who can choose, for whom choices are made available, choose to have less children.

Japan begins trial sales of prescription-free morning-after pills"
28th November 2023, 05:16 PST

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-6755...

There are 2 kinds of consequences.

The haves suffer a financial impact. We must pay more for things that are, let's face it, unattainable luxuries for the have-nots. Many of us will have to do without those niceties/luxuries.

How will we exist without our Keurig coffee pods, DeLonghi espresso machines and dual-fuel pizza oven? What will life be like if mid-winter fruit imported from South America to North America triples in price?
How will wealthy Chicagoans survive without fresh Hawaiian papaya?

You can't fight climate change with policies that only affect niceties/luxuries. That's the core problem.

Sure, there are low-hanging fruit. You can make people give up incandescent bulbs in favor of LED's, and (correctly IMHO) dismiss folks' annoyance at giving up the "richness" or "warmth" of the old bulbs as a First World Problem. But those things are greenwashing policies - utterly irrelevant to solving the problem.

To actually effect change, you need policies that really bite. Things that drive up the cost of core necessities (electricity, heating, transport). Things that meaningfully effect public allocation of funds (money goes to transit instead of highways, making it harder to live outside of dense urban areas). Really damaging certain industries and sectors. Or, as described in a recent Politico.eu profile of the architect of Europe's green policy:

THE ARCHITECT OF EUROPE’S GREEN REVOLUTION knew he was unleashing dislocation and suffering across the Continent. He knew that, because half a century ago his family and practically everybody they knew had their lives turned upside down by the same kind of industrial upheaval he himself has now loosed across the European Union.

As the European commissioner in charge of the wrenching transformation the bloc must undergo to meet its climate ambitions, Frans Timmermans has spoken often about the fate of the former Dutch coal town where he spent part of his early life. In his telling, Heerlen is a cautionary tale, a warning of the dangers for communities when not enough is done to cushion them from change.

https://www.politico.eu/article/does-the-architect...

Greens do themselves no favors by pretending that actually, meaningfully fighting climate change involves nothing more than denying luxuries and niceties to rich people, rather than also involving "dislocation and suffering" for poor people.

BHM:It's not that the illegals are hated, it is that we cannot accommodate 100% of those who wish to immigrate here. If we cannot take them all, then we need to establish a system to actually control and limit who can come here. Heck we cannot even keep out those who have been deported multiple times. We can discuss whatever filters need to applied at the border, but without an effective filter, the discussion is academic.

And we *could* get that done. The reason it doesn't get done seems to be that it's a great vote getter and rallying point for one party. Plus, it means compromise - a very dirty word nowadays. Hell, the Constitution itself was a compromise - actually several.

I don't think we've ever accomadated 100% though. While my heart gos out to the woman who wants a better life for her kids, we can't accomodate everyone.

This is not a problem with me. I have proposed using embassy or similar powers and establishing a justice (court) system in Mexico where people could present themselves and apply. They would stay in Mexico and get due process there. The object would be to rapidly sort out the 1 out of 20 that might be eligible and to house them there until the process was well enough along to bring them across the border. Do the same thing at the Guatemalan border.

Now why 1 out of 20? These are people who we've determined if we send them back there's a good chance they can be hurt, killed, or incarcerated inhumanely. It might be 1 out of 40, who knows.

But there is no open border, that's just campaign rhetoric.

Quibble: most of the climate science community says we already have 2C baked-in. So limiting to 1.5C isn't happening, even under ideal circumstances.

You make a good point. But I suspect that, had we acted earlier, it would have been cheaper to have those govt programs, than to deal with the ramifications that are already starting today. Probably we will only know for certain in 100 years after they tally up the costs. But I think we've been "penny-wise, pound foolish" with regard to the costs of climate change.

Academic now. We will have to deal with adapting to a warmer world, which may include some places becoming uninhabitable (like parts of the middle east).

This is not a problem with me. I have proposed using embassy or similar powers and establishing a justice (court) system in Mexico where people could present themselves and apply. They would stay in Mexico and get due process there. The object would be to rapidly sort out the 1 out of 20 that might be eligible and to house them there until the process was well enough along to bring them across the border. Do the same thing at the Guatemalan border. - Lapsody

=======================

Immigration cases heard in Mexico is a great idea. Really. However such a process would only work if the alternative of simply skipping court and walking in remains an option. A secure border is the foundation that all other solutions must be built on, otherwise we are kidding ourselves.

If your life is being shattered where you are, move somewhere else on your own...

And then "build the wall" to keep them out? Because a lot of them will try to come here.

And then "build the wall" to keep them out? Because a lot of them will try to come here. - 1pg

------------------

Despite how many want to come here, with a secure border we can limit the number to be whatever we think is our capacity to absorb. And heck we may even favor letting in a few more of those with skills that our economy needs at the time.

You can't fight climate change with policies that only affect niceties/luxuries.

Correct. But neither can the excessive consumption of the 'haves' be excluded from the discussion.

I know you don't agree with my view that overpopulation and rampant consumerism are not sustainable.

Heck, Elon Musk is saying the earth can easily handle twice the population.

It's a cold, amoral species that discounts and/or dismisses the value of biodiversity, that ignores the plight of species fading into avoidable extinction, succumbing to the pollution of industrialization and the pressures of human overpopulation.

But I suspect that, had we acted earlier, it would have been cheaper to have those govt programs, than to deal with the ramifications that are already starting today.

No reason to think that. In fact, quite the contrary. It's cheaper to do this stuff now, when the tech is more advanced, than it would have been a decade or two ago. Politically, voters are choking on the price tag even though solar and wind and EV batteries are cheaper (per unit capacity) than ever. It wouldn't have been any easier back in the day.

But the "secure border" is an illusion. You can't secure such a long border, with water on both sides (no wall there!).

We can heavily penalize people who employ the undocumented. With no opportunities, migration will drop to a trickle. And/or we can try to address the problems forcing those people to leave their homes. I suspect the former will be easier to implement since foreign governments would be involved in the latter.

You are right about the tech. But also smaller changes would have been needed previously.

Like deflecting an asteroid. If you wait till it's a few days away from hitting the planet, it is almost impossible to move it enough to not hit the planet. If you just nudge it a bit 10 years prior, it doesn't take much of a nudge to change the trajectory enough for it to miss.

You are right about the tech. But also smaller changes would have been needed previously.

I'm not sure that's right, either. You need basically the same "size" of changes - you just would have had more years to spread them over. So even though the overall shift is the same "size" (eliminate all ICE vehicles, eliminate all fossil fuel electricity generation, etc.), you have a smaller per-year shift.

Make no mistake - the policies that voters are pushing back on now aren't anywhere big enough to meaningfully solve the climate change problem, either. Voters in the OECD are simply unwilling to pay the costs necessary to keep climate change low.

Yes, I agree. As I said, at this point it is academic. We're not going to stop running this experiment, and the world is going to be a radically different place in 100 years.

Make no mistake - the policies that voters are pushing back on now aren't anywhere big enough to meaningfully solve the climate change problem, either. Voters in the OECD are simply unwilling to pay the costs necessary to keep climate change low.

Automakers are now pushing back on EV policies:
https://reason.com/2023/11/30/automakers-rethink-e...

Ford and General Motors (G.M.), two of the three automakers that reached a deal with the UAW last month to end the strike, have announced plans this week to scale back future investments in electric vehicle (E.V.) production. Both companies have cited the higher labor costs created by the new union contract as a motivating factor for cutting costs, and E.V. production lines seem to be some of the top targets—perhaps not a surprise, given lackluster E.V. sales.

...
Separately, Ford has announced plans to postpone about $12 billion in planned investments in E.V. production. That includes punting on plans to build a battery production facility in Kentucky and postponing an expansion of a Michigan E.V. plant.

The story at G.M. appears to be pretty similar. New labor costs will total about $9.3 billion over the life of the UAW contract, and the company is planning to "fully offset the incremental costs of our new labour agreements," according to a CBC report this week. It looks like E.V. and self-driving vehicle production will take a significant hit.

Immigration cases heard in Mexico is a great idea. Really. However such a process would only work if the alternative of simply skipping court and walking in remains an option. A secure border is the foundation that all other solutions must be built on, otherwise we are kidding ourselves.

We could try various scenarios. If you skip the Mexican court you automatically have to wait X years and get speedy ejection if found in US. 2d time banned. The wall only helps in some places, no sense building it where it won't assist. One way would be to place all (clean) rejected in a lotto where they get a chance to be drawn and come on in! :) We could have a separate lotto for those who use work visas to enter for work.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.