No. of Recommendations: 3
The Navy is moving bases so that as sea level rises, they don't get flooded. That alone is going to cost billions, and is not borne by the rest of the world (i.e. Americans will have to pay for it).I mean - maybe? The thing about making changes over the course of decades is that you often can just make the change at a time when you would need to make a major investment in the facility anyway. You defer maintenance and wait until you were going to redo large portions of the base anyway - and then just move to the new base
instead of investing in fixing the old base. So the actual marginal cost ends up being only a portion of the full cost. And the article you cite doesn't even affirmatively state that such measures will be necessary - and indeed focuses as much on the uncertainty (what if were to build new bases and end up not using/needing them?) as the cost.
I, also, was trying to make the point -perhaps poorly- that we were canceling the wrong subsidies. Continue to subsidize EVs, and remove the subsidies on oil. Again - making things just a little bit harder for the working class in order to achieve progressive goals on climate.
Y'see, EV subsidies mostly benefit wealthier people. They tend to be bought by people who are significantly wealthier than average, for a few reasons. They're more expensive than typical cars. They are disproportionately
newer cars than typical cars - which are more often bought by wealthier people than working class people (most car sales are
used car sales, by like 3:1, and most working class folks will drive older cars). And while there are certainly
some apartments with plugs, EV's are better suited for those who live in an owner-occupied single-family home than someone renting an apartment.
https://archive.is/OrHTm#selection-395.0-411.198Wiping oil subsidies in favor of EV subsidies has a distributive effect, and one that works against the working class.
