Apple's Lisa Jackson sees 'economic opportunity' in Clean Energy Standard

Posted:
in General Discussion edited June 2021
Apple's Lisa Jackson believes that a shift to the Clean Energy Standard will benefit everyone, despite how the move troubles people who are worried for their current jobs.

Lisa Jackson, Apple Vice President, Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives
Lisa Jackson, Apple Vice President, Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives


Lisa Jackson, Apple Vice President, Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives, has reaffirmed Apple's stance on renewable, clean energy. Speaking at the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) summit, she backed the plan for a US-wide approach.

According to Forbes, Jackson talked about steps being taken now, plus how businesses need clear guidance as they move to comply with clean energy requirements.

"We support the passage of a Clean Energy Standard which we think will drive large amounts of renewable generation, or new renewable generation, and do so in a way that shows people where they need to go and what they need to get there," said Jackson.

"[It will need] clear interim targets to motivate progress along the way," she continued. "We believe strongly that we need private sector accountability. We also believe that transparency is really important to build trust."

"What you manage is what you measured," said Jackson. "When you measure it, you start to be accountable all throughout the organization."

Jackson nodded towards those concerned about economic disruption and job loss a result of a shifting environmental perspective.

"[It's] an economic opportunity for your community... it's not going to take jobs away, it's going to bring opportunity in," she said. "[Overall] net-net, we are better off as a community [but government needs to give] communities a seat at the table in those discussions that are happening."

Apple itself is in extensive discussions with its suppliers, said Jackson. "We've made very clear, frankly, that by 2030 we're requiring [them] to use clean energy, and it needs to be 100%," she said.

"So [we're saying] work with us now in these 9 years remaining so we can all get to clean energy together," added Jackson. She also revealed that the company is aiming to help suppliers share information between themselves, on how to transition to clean energy processes.

Jackson's comments about how "clean energy is good business, plain and simple," match what she and Apple have consistently been saying. In April 2021, she told the Washington Post that Apple is funding a $200 million Restore Fund to work on forestry projects, for example.

Follow all the details of WWDC 2021 with the comprehensive AppleInsider coverage of the whole week-long event from June 7 through June 11, including details of all the new launches and updates.

Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,382member
    The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric.


    JWSCtoddzrx
  • Reply 2 of 25
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,367member
    entropys said:
    The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric.


    Fossil fuels have been hugely subsidized for generations. Giveaways for mining and drilling on public lands and in public waters are a drop in the bucket compared to the money and blood we’ve spent on decades of middle-east wars to fight over foreign places you wouldn’t know existed if they weren’t sitting on top of oil and gas deposits. Then there’s the externalized costs to our water and air, killing millions of us slowly and painfully with carcinogenic runoff, destruction of the natural environment and particulates in the air. That’s before we even start talking about the disastrous effects of climate change from the stuff.

    Clean energy and renewables are coming, whether you like it or not. That’s where the energy jobs will be. You can get on board with it, or you can keep sharpening your harpoon while you insist that whale oil is where it’s at.
    GeorgeBMacOnPartyBusinessAlex_Vbyronlhydrogenjony0Dogpersontmay
  • Reply 3 of 25
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 235member
    AppleZulu said:
    entropys said:
    The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric.


    Fossil fuels have been hugely subsidized for generations. Giveaways for mining and drilling on public lands and in public waters are a drop in the bucket compared to the money and blood we’ve spent on decades of middle-east wars to fight over foreign places you wouldn’t know existed if they weren’t sitting on top of oil and gas deposits. Then there’s the externalized costs to our water and air, killing millions of us slowly and painfully with carcinogenic runoff, destruction of the natural environment and particulates in the air. That’s before we even start talking about the disastrous effects of climate change from the stuff.

    Clean energy and renewables are coming, whether you like it or not. That’s where the energy jobs will be. You can get on board with it, or you can keep sharpening your harpoon while you insist that whale oil is where it’s at.
    …and your post is the usual BS, progressive talking points backed by zero evidence. If “clean energy” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is an opportunity waiting to happen it would have already occurred. Let the market decide, instead of ramming it down this country’s throat. 
    JWSCentropys
  • Reply 4 of 25
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    toddzrx said:
    AppleZulu said:
    entropys said:
    The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric.


    Fossil fuels have been hugely subsidized for generations. Giveaways for mining and drilling on public lands and in public waters are a drop in the bucket compared to the money and blood we’ve spent on decades of middle-east wars to fight over foreign places you wouldn’t know existed if they weren’t sitting on top of oil and gas deposits. Then there’s the externalized costs to our water and air, killing millions of us slowly and painfully with carcinogenic runoff, destruction of the natural environment and particulates in the air. That’s before we even start talking about the disastrous effects of climate change from the stuff.

    Clean energy and renewables are coming, whether you like it or not. That’s where the energy jobs will be. You can get on board with it, or you can keep sharpening your harpoon while you insist that whale oil is where it’s at.
    …and your post is the usual BS, progressive talking points backed by zero evidence. If “clean energy” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is an opportunity waiting to happen it would have already occurred. Let the market decide, instead of ramming it down this country’s throat. 

  • Reply 5 of 25
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    It's happening throughout the world. Businesses are moving in that direction. Try to make some kind of argument backed up by facts rather then the usual “BS argument” about the free market & progressives. I guess Ford just rammed their free market electric pick up down your throat. Ford, a bunch of BS progressive socialists.
    GeorgeBMacAlex_Vtmay
  • Reply 6 of 25
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    When the immense -- no beyond immense -- costs of climate change are folded into the equation, there is simply no comparison.  Those costs include the impact of droughts, powerful storms, vast fires as well as flooded cities, the costs of fossil fuels are far higher than that of renewables. 

    But to minimize the impact of converting to renewable energy on specific groups and individuals is strategically wise but morally bankrupt.

    Living in Pittsburgh I see those effects every day:   the "Mon Valley" used to be lined with enormous steel mills providing secure high paying jobs to tens of thousands of workers and it wasn't just along the river but throughout the region.   But, once those mill closed, the communities that supplied them with workers became slums almost every night -- growing a population deprived of hope as well as marketable skills.

    We as nation need to better understand and deal with those situations.   "Re-education" and training programs didn't work then and they won't work in the future.
    We need better ways to manage those displaced workers and communities.

    Saying the 'wider community is better off' may be true, but it doesn't help those who have been deprived of their jobs.
    muthuk_vanalingamsdw2001
  • Reply 7 of 25
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,367member
    toddzrx said:
    AppleZulu said:
    entropys said:
    The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric.


    Fossil fuels have been hugely subsidized for generations. Giveaways for mining and drilling on public lands and in public waters are a drop in the bucket compared to the money and blood we’ve spent on decades of middle-east wars to fight over foreign places you wouldn’t know existed if they weren’t sitting on top of oil and gas deposits. Then there’s the externalized costs to our water and air, killing millions of us slowly and painfully with carcinogenic runoff, destruction of the natural environment and particulates in the air. That’s before we even start talking about the disastrous effects of climate change from the stuff.

    Clean energy and renewables are coming, whether you like it or not. That’s where the energy jobs will be. You can get on board with it, or you can keep sharpening your harpoon while you insist that whale oil is where it’s at.
    …and your post is the usual BS, progressive talking points backed by zero evidence. If “clean energy” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is an opportunity waiting to happen it would have already occurred. Let the market decide, instead of ramming it down this country’s throat. 
    Your BS libertarian talking points are backed by no evidence at all. What do you think the market would decide if the subsidies for fossil fuels were taken away? There’s no such thing as cheap gasoline, you know. 

    The externalized costs of fossil fuels are becoming so large that even industry giants like Apple know it’s not sustainable. Climate change introduces too much instability into the equation. Increasingly large and more frequent natural disasters induce mass migrations, political instability, wars and worse. You can’t profitability source global supply chains, manufacture complex devices and sell them worldwide under those circumstances. 

    It makes perfect sense that Apple and others are highly motivated to shift their investments to renewable energy sources that will lend themselves to greater environmental and political stability worldwide. They’re also going to encourage governments to incentivize and support those changes through both funding and policy, so that the switch to renewables happens more quickly. 

    The only ones against that are the companies that are invested heavily in existing extraction and distribution of fossil fuels. The same companies who have benefited immensely by externalizing their costs by dumping waste on our land, in our water and in our air. These are the very same externalities that are generating the political and market instabilities that companies like Apple would prefer to avoid. 

    The reality is that even these companies are seeing the writing on the wall, and the moment their accountants report to them that hanging onto the old fossil fuels businesses is even slightly more expensive than going all-in on renewables, they will dump the old and dive into the new. 

    We already watched the same companies do that when fracking made natural gas cheaper than coal. They tried to paint the false narrative that subsidies for renewables killed coal, but the reality is that the development of fracking technology along with bought-and-paid-for  government policy ignoring the environmental impact of fracking (thus allowing the cost of those impacts to be externalized) made gas “cheap,” coal expensive, and miners unemployed. 

    Now you go. Tell us all how renewables are socialism but fossil fuels are a bastion of the free market that never received a dime or drop of blood in government support. 
    GeorgeBMacAlex_VDogpersontmay
  • Reply 8 of 25
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,367member
    splif said:
    It's happening throughout the world. Businesses are moving in that direction. Try to make some kind of argument backed up by facts rather then the usual “BS argument” about the free market & progressives. I guess Ford just rammed their free market electric pick up down your throat. Ford, a bunch of BS progressive socialists.
    It’s not a random accident that Tesla started with expensive electric cars that can go 0-60 in under three seconds and now Ford is introducing a brute force electric F-150 truck. These vehicles aren’t aimed at hippie environmentalists. They’re the industry equivalent of the newbie finding the toughest guy in the prison yard on the first day and knocking him unconscious. In this case, the guy lying on his back with a broken nose is the fossil fuels industry. He’s going to try to act all tough for a while longer, but everybody else in the yard already knows his days are over. 
    edited May 2021 Alex_V
  • Reply 9 of 25
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    AppleZulu said:
    toddzrx said:
    AppleZulu said:
    entropys said:
    The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric.


    Fossil fuels have been hugely subsidized for generations. Giveaways for mining and drilling on public lands and in public waters are a drop in the bucket compared to the money and blood we’ve spent on decades of middle-east wars to fight over foreign places you wouldn’t know existed if they weren’t sitting on top of oil and gas deposits. Then there’s the externalized costs to our water and air, killing millions of us slowly and painfully with carcinogenic runoff, destruction of the natural environment and particulates in the air. That’s before we even start talking about the disastrous effects of climate change from the stuff.

    Clean energy and renewables are coming, whether you like it or not. That’s where the energy jobs will be. You can get on board with it, or you can keep sharpening your harpoon while you insist that whale oil is where it’s at.
    …and your post is the usual BS, progressive talking points backed by zero evidence. If “clean energy” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is an opportunity waiting to happen it would have already occurred. Let the market decide, instead of ramming it down this country’s throat. 
    Your BS libertarian talking points are backed by no evidence at all. What do you think the market would decide if the subsidies for fossil fuels were taken away? There’s no such thing as cheap gasoline, you know. 

    The externalized costs of fossil fuels are becoming so large that even industry giants like Apple know it’s not sustainable. Climate change introduces too much instability into the equation. Increasingly large and more frequent natural disasters induce mass migrations, political instability, wars and worse. You can’t profitability source global supply chains, manufacture complex devices and sell them worldwide under those circumstances. 

    It makes perfect sense that Apple and others are highly motivated to shift their investments to renewable energy sources that will lend themselves to greater environmental and political stability worldwide. They’re also going to encourage governments to incentivize and support those changes through both funding and policy, so that the switch to renewables happens more quickly. 

    The only ones against that are the companies that are invested heavily in existing extraction and distribution of fossil fuels. The same companies who have benefited immensely by externalizing their costs by dumping waste on our land, in our water and in our air. These are the very same externalities that are generating the political and market instabilities that companies like Apple would prefer to avoid. 

    The reality is that even these companies are seeing the writing on the wall, and the moment their accountants report to them that hanging onto the old fossil fuels businesses is even slightly more expensive than going all-in on renewables, they will dump the old and dive into the new. 

    We already watched the same companies do that when fracking made natural gas cheaper than coal. They tried to paint the false narrative that subsidies for renewables killed coal, but the reality is that the development of fracking technology along with bought-and-paid-for  government policy ignoring the environmental impact of fracking (thus allowing the cost of those impacts to be externalized) made gas “cheap,” coal expensive, and miners unemployed. 

    Now you go. Tell us all how renewables are socialism but fossil fuels are a bastion of the free market that never received a dime or drop of blood in government support. 

    That's all true - and well spoken... 
    But also he demonstrated one of the innate weaknesses of Libertarian, Free Market capitalism.  Namely:

    Nobody is going to do it.
    Exxon will continue pumping, refining and selling gasoline & oil -- because it's in their best interest
    GM will continue to produce gas guzzlers rather than invest in the R&D and new plant infrastructure -- because it's in their best interest
    Consumers will continue to buy gas and gas guzzlers because they have no other alternative.

    Meanwhile, as we stumble along, autocratic Chine continues to surge ahead of us in yet another arena.

    LIbertarian, free market capitalism is like a teenager with a parent who leaves them roam free without supervision -- sometimes you get a great kid and sometimes a degenerate.
    Alex_V
  • Reply 10 of 25
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    AppleZulu said:
    splif said:
    It's happening throughout the world. Businesses are moving in that direction. Try to make some kind of argument backed up by facts rather then the usual “BS argument” about the free market & progressives. I guess Ford just rammed their free market electric pick up down your throat. Ford, a bunch of BS progressive socialists.
    It’s not a random accident that Tesla started with expensive electric cars that can go 0-60 in under three seconds and now Ford is introducing a brute force electric F-150 truck. These vehicles aren’t aimed at hippie environmentalists. They’re the industry equivalent of the newbie finding the toughest guy in the prison yard on the first day and knocking him unconscious. In this case, the guy lying on his back with a broken nose is the fossil fuels industry. He’s going to try to act all tough for a while longer, but everybody else in the yard already knows his days are over. 
    Perhaps.  But my personal theory (backed with no definitive evidence) is that, mostly because of the battery, EVs cost too much -- so the margin would be too small in affordable, mainstream cars. 

    Also, its a marketing move to push the idea that electric is superior to gas.  If they started putting out affordable EVs in small cars with a range of 100 miles, it would get a bad reputation as only attractive to the economy minded -- but still not as attractive to high end buyers.

  • Reply 11 of 25
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,367member
    AppleZulu said:
    splif said:
    It's happening throughout the world. Businesses are moving in that direction. Try to make some kind of argument backed up by facts rather then the usual “BS argument” about the free market & progressives. I guess Ford just rammed their free market electric pick up down your throat. Ford, a bunch of BS progressive socialists.
    It’s not a random accident that Tesla started with expensive electric cars that can go 0-60 in under three seconds and now Ford is introducing a brute force electric F-150 truck. These vehicles aren’t aimed at hippie environmentalists. They’re the industry equivalent of the newbie finding the toughest guy in the prison yard on the first day and knocking him unconscious. In this case, the guy lying on his back with a broken nose is the fossil fuels industry. He’s going to try to act all tough for a while longer, but everybody else in the yard already knows his days are over. 
    Perhaps.  But my personal theory (backed with no definitive evidence) is that, mostly because of the battery, EVs cost too much -- so the margin would be too small in affordable, mainstream cars. 

    Also, its a marketing move to push the idea that electric is superior to gas.  If they started putting out affordable EVs in small cars with a range of 100 miles, it would get a bad reputation as only attractive to the economy minded -- but still not as attractive to high end buyers.

    This was done several decades ago and was a complete failure. Moving an industry and consumers off of fossil fuel-powered vehicles requires demonstrating that cars can have range and power, rather than leasing expensive, under-powered, impractical and ugly EVs to Ed Begley, Jr, hoping he’ll talk them up on Letterman.  

    By starting at the high end of the market, Tesla made vehicles that have features people demand at that price-point (range and power) and it doesn’t matter that the batteries are expensive. This buys time, money and consumer interest while developing better and cheaper batteries. By the time Tesla (and/or others) bring truly affordable EVs to market, the technology is vastly better as well as cheaper, and those affordable cars will have better range and power than comparable gasoline-powered vehicles. Then people buy them because they want them, not because Ed Begley said it’s the right thing to do. 

    This isn’t a new concept. A whole panoply of features like ABS and traction control that come standard on affordable cars now started out as expensive selling points on Mercedes and Lexus vehicles decades earlier. 
    JWSCmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 25
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,145member
    splif said:
    It's happening throughout the world. Businesses are moving in that direction. Try to make some kind of argument backed up by facts rather then the usual “BS argument” about the free market & progressives. I guess Ford just rammed their free market electric pick up down your throat. Ford, a bunch of BS progressive socialists.
    Don’t fool yourself.  Ford and other automakers are moving toward EVs out of political expediency, not out of a desire from the larger auto market.  But time will tell.  In a few short years we will see just how popular an EV version of the Ford F-150 is with its target market, which is kinda-sorta red state.
    edited May 2021 tmay
  • Reply 13 of 25
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,145member
    When the immense -- no beyond immense -- costs of climate change are folded into the equation, there is simply no comparison.  Those costs include the impact of droughts, powerful storms, vast fires as well as flooded cities, the costs of fossil fuels are far higher than that of renewables. 

    But to minimize the impact of converting to renewable energy on specific groups and individuals is strategically wise but morally bankrupt.

    Living in Pittsburgh I see those effects every day:   the "Mon Valley" used to be lined with enormous steel mills providing secure high paying jobs to tens of thousands of workers and it wasn't just along the river but throughout the region.   But, once those mill closed, the communities that supplied them with workers became slums almost every night -- growing a population deprived of hope as well as marketable skills.

    We as nation need to better understand and deal with those situations.   "Re-education" and training programs didn't work then and they won't work in the future.
    We need better ways to manage those displaced workers and communities.

    Saying the 'wider community is better off' may be true, but it doesn't help those who have been deprived of their jobs.
    You’re right about re-education and retaining not working as advertised.  We need to stop lying to people that will be displaced by politically driven economic decisions that it is all going to be OK.  A new approach is needed otherwise climate change related mandates will never achieve the buy-in needed to be successful.  The people to be displaced will justifiably see climate change mandates as a war against them, and they will understandably fight tooth and nail against these changes.

    I went to CMU in the early ‘80 and watched the last gasp of heavy industry go down.  For me as a college student it was a golden time in my life.  But I could see the economic and social devastation it brought to so many.  Climate change mandates as proposed today threaten similar harm.

    I absolutely do not see climate change as a existential threat.  But I would be far less opposed to activities geared toward mitigating the perceived threat if the proposed solutions didn’t have the side effect of ruining so many people’s lives in the process.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 14 of 25
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,145member
    AppleZulu said:
    AppleZulu said:
    splif said:
    It's happening throughout the world. Businesses are moving in that direction. Try to make some kind of argument backed up by facts rather then the usual “BS argument” about the free market & progressives. I guess Ford just rammed their free market electric pick up down your throat. Ford, a bunch of BS progressive socialists.
    It’s not a random accident that Tesla started with expensive electric cars that can go 0-60 in under three seconds and now Ford is introducing a brute force electric F-150 truck. These vehicles aren’t aimed at hippie environmentalists. They’re the industry equivalent of the newbie finding the toughest guy in the prison yard on the first day and knocking him unconscious. In this case, the guy lying on his back with a broken nose is the fossil fuels industry. He’s going to try to act all tough for a while longer, but everybody else in the yard already knows his days are over. 
    Perhaps.  But my personal theory (backed with no definitive evidence) is that, mostly because of the battery, EVs cost too much -- so the margin would be too small in affordable, mainstream cars. 

    Also, its a marketing move to push the idea that electric is superior to gas.  If they started putting out affordable EVs in small cars with a range of 100 miles, it would get a bad reputation as only attractive to the economy minded -- but still not as attractive to high end buyers.

    This was done several decades ago and was a complete failure. Moving an industry and consumers off of fossil fuel-powered vehicles requires demonstrating that cars can have range and power, rather than leasing expensive, under-powered, impractical and ugly EVs to Ed Begley, Jr, hoping he’ll talk them up on Letterman.  

    By starting at the high end of the market, Tesla made vehicles that have features people demand at that price-point (range and power) and it doesn’t matter that the batteries are expensive. This buys time, money and consumer interest while developing better and cheaper batteries. By the time Tesla (and/or others) bring truly affordable EVs to market, the technology is vastly better as well as cheaper, and those affordable cars will have better range and power than comparable gasoline-powered vehicles. Then people buy them because they want them, not because Ed Begley said it’s the right thing to do. 

    This isn’t a new concept. A whole panoply of features like ABS and traction control that come standard on affordable cars now started out as expensive selling points on Mercedes and Lexus vehicles decades earlier. 
    Very much agree with your take and George's take on Tesla.  It is a winning way to develop difficult technologies (such as batteries) and win mindshare in the public as to the desirability of EVs.  I own a luxury ICE vehicle right now and I like it very much.  But my next vehicle will be a Tesla or, if Apple can muster it, the ephemeral, the mythical, the legendary Apple Car.  And I want it not because it's going to save the planet but because it is an amazing piece of technology that outperforms ICE engines in torque, acceleration and soon, if not already, mileage.  That is the way to win the future, not by forced mandates that will cause economic pain but by offering people a better future.
  • Reply 15 of 25
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    JWSC said:
    splif said:
    It's happening throughout the world. Businesses are moving in that direction. Try to make some kind of argument backed up by facts rather then the usual “BS argument” about the free market & progressives. I guess Ford just rammed their free market electric pick up down your throat. Ford, a bunch of BS progressive socialists.
    Don’t fool yourself.  Ford and other automakers are moving toward EVs out of political expediency, not out of a desire from the larger auto market.  But time will tell.  In a few short years we will see just how popular an EV version of the Ford F-150 is with its target market, which is kinda-sorta red state.
    If anyone is fooling themselves it’s you. Again back up the political expediency statement. This is an evolutionary process. It doesn’t happen overnight. You’re right we’ll see.

    What exactly is the issue here? Change? Change is constant. What’s wrong with this country creating new industries? The problem with arguments like yours is they are usually based on ideology & are not based on history or facts.

    I have no sympathy for the fossil fuel industry. They have the resources to diversify their energy portfolio. They should have started that process years ago.

    As far as government involvement in the private sector to move the country forward, how did interstate highways happen &why? There are many examples of this throughout our country’s history from both sides of the aisle. There are many examples of government investment in industry & inventions that have moved this country forward.
    Alex_Vtmay
  • Reply 16 of 25
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    splif said:
    JWSC said:
    splif said:
    It's happening throughout the world. Businesses are moving in that direction. Try to make some kind of argument backed up by facts rather then the usual “BS argument” about the free market & progressives. I guess Ford just rammed their free market electric pick up down your throat. Ford, a bunch of BS progressive socialists.
    Don’t fool yourself.  Ford and other automakers are moving toward EVs out of political expediency, not out of a desire from the larger auto market.  But time will tell.  In a few short years we will see just how popular an EV version of the Ford F-150 is with its target market, which is kinda-sorta red state.
    If anyone is fooling themselves it’s you. Again back up the political expediency statement. This is an evolutionary process. It doesn’t happen overnight. You’re right we’ll see.

    What exactly is the issue here? Change? Change is constant. What’s wrong with this country creating new industries? The problem with arguments like yours is they are usually based on ideology & are not based on history or facts.

    I have no sympathy for the fossil fuel industry. They have the resources to diversify their energy portfolio. They should have started that process years ago.

    As far as government involvement in the private sector to move the country forward, how did interstate highways happen &why? There are many examples of this throughout our country’s history from both sides of the aisle. There are many examples of government investment in industry & inventions that have moved this country forward.

    Very true....
    A good example is electricity:   100 years ago it was only available in heavily populated areas.   But then, partly as a make-work scheme and partly to advance the technology of the country, the government stepped in and pushed the electrification out to all of the nation instead of only those parts that were profitable to private enterprise.

    Today we face a similar situation with broadband:  vast swaths of the nation are not covered simply because it isn't profitable to cover them.   So, government is now talking about using its power and resources to push broadband out to all of the nation.

    The ideology that private enterprise is always superior is flawed
    Likewise, the ideology that government is always superior is also flawed.

    We need both, used and allocated wisely, to advance and to remain competitive in the global market place.

    More relevant to this discussion:  most agree that EVs are the way of the future.   But, with few EVs it is not profitable to build numerous charging stations.  But, without numerous charging stations EVs are not very practical.   It's the old chicken or the egg question.   Again, government is talking of stepping in and -- hopefully no pun intended -- laying that first egg of nationwide charging stations.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 17 of 25
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,991member
    toddzrx said:
    AppleZulu said:
    entropys said:
    The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric.


    Fossil fuels have been hugely subsidized for generations. Giveaways for mining and drilling on public lands and in public waters are a drop in the bucket compared to the money and blood we’ve spent on decades of middle-east wars to fight over foreign places you wouldn’t know existed if they weren’t sitting on top of oil and gas deposits. Then there’s the externalized costs to our water and air, killing millions of us slowly and painfully with carcinogenic runoff, destruction of the natural environment and particulates in the air. That’s before we even start talking about the disastrous effects of climate change from the stuff.

    Clean energy and renewables are coming, whether you like it or not. That’s where the energy jobs will be. You can get on board with it, or you can keep sharpening your harpoon while you insist that whale oil is where it’s at.
    …and your post is the usual BS, progressive talking points backed by zero evidence. If “clean energy” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is an opportunity waiting to happen it would have already occurred. Let the market decide, instead of ramming it down this country’s throat. 
    Fine.  Stop all the fossil fuel subsidies.  Stop granting eminent domain special purchasing of land for oil pipelines.  Stop tax breaks for shale gas discovery.  Get rid of indemnification for environmental damage.  Then we'll let the market actually decide.

    You call it BS, but these subsidies, tax breaks and political leverage actually exist.  They're a matter of public record.  The only BS is the fiction that fossil fuel is the better economic solution.
    Alex_VDogpersontmay
  • Reply 18 of 25
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,382member
    AppleZulu said:
    splif said:
    It's happening throughout the world. Businesses are moving in that direction. Try to make some kind of argument backed up by facts rather then the usual “BS argument” about the free market & progressives. I guess Ford just rammed their free market electric pick up down your throat. Ford, a bunch of BS progressive socialists.
    It’s not a random accident that Tesla started with expensive electric cars that can go 0-60 in under three seconds and now Ford is introducing a brute force electric F-150 truck. These vehicles aren’t aimed at hippie environmentalists. They’re the industry equivalent of the newbie finding the toughest guy in the prison yard on the first day and knocking him unconscious. In this case, the guy lying on his back with a broken nose is the fossil fuels industry. He’s going to try to act all tough for a while longer, but everybody else in the yard already knows his days are over. 
    The exist because of government regulation requiring them to exist. In Europe it will be the only type of car allowed to be built within ten years. Because politicians get driven around, they don’t have to pay for their cars. Other People Do. 
    And to use your analogy. The umpire has forced one of the players to stand on one leg, and force them to quit at the eighth round because feelz.
    now, if there is some breakthrough in EV and battery tech that makes them even a reasonable substitute at a reasonable price, the free market you deride would make EVs first choice. But it hasn’t so far. And getting the tax eaters to force it along faster so parasites can get to their utopia soonest means sub optimal outcomes all the way. 
    JWSC
  • Reply 19 of 25
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,382member

    crowley said:
    toddzrx said:
    AppleZulu said:
    entropys said:
    The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric.


    Fossil fuels have been hugely subsidized for generations. Giveaways for mining and drilling on public lands and in public waters are a drop in the bucket compared to the money and blood we’ve spent on decades of middle-east wars to fight over foreign places you wouldn’t know existed if they weren’t sitting on top of oil and gas deposits. Then there’s the externalized costs to our water and air, killing millions of us slowly and painfully with carcinogenic runoff, destruction of the natural environment and particulates in the air. That’s before we even start talking about the disastrous effects of climate change from the stuff.

    Clean energy and renewables are coming, whether you like it or not. That’s where the energy jobs will be. You can get on board with it, or you can keep sharpening your harpoon while you insist that whale oil is where it’s at.
    …and your post is the usual BS, progressive talking points backed by zero evidence. If “clean energy” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is an opportunity waiting to happen it would have already occurred. Let the market decide, instead of ramming it down this country’s throat. 
    Fine.  Stop all the fossil fuel subsidies.  Stop granting eminent domain special purchasing of land for oil pipelines.  Stop tax breaks for shale gas discovery.  Get rid of indemnification for environmental damage.  Then we'll let the market actually decide.

    You call it BS, but these subsidies, tax breaks and political leverage actually exist.  They're a matter of public record.  The only BS is the fiction that fossil fuel is the better economic solution.
    Happy for all subsidies and tax breaks, and additional taxes on certain sectors to prop up others, to cease for all energy sources. Level the playing field. May the most efficient, cheapest source of energy win.
    JWSC
  • Reply 20 of 25
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,367member
    entropys said:

    crowley said:
    toddzrx said:
    AppleZulu said:
    entropys said:
    The main economic opportunity is in subsidy farming. And the only places these jobs exist is in rhetoric.


    Fossil fuels have been hugely subsidized for generations. Giveaways for mining and drilling on public lands and in public waters are a drop in the bucket compared to the money and blood we’ve spent on decades of middle-east wars to fight over foreign places you wouldn’t know existed if they weren’t sitting on top of oil and gas deposits. Then there’s the externalized costs to our water and air, killing millions of us slowly and painfully with carcinogenic runoff, destruction of the natural environment and particulates in the air. That’s before we even start talking about the disastrous effects of climate change from the stuff.

    Clean energy and renewables are coming, whether you like it or not. That’s where the energy jobs will be. You can get on board with it, or you can keep sharpening your harpoon while you insist that whale oil is where it’s at.
    …and your post is the usual BS, progressive talking points backed by zero evidence. If “clean energy” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is an opportunity waiting to happen it would have already occurred. Let the market decide, instead of ramming it down this country’s throat. 
    Fine.  Stop all the fossil fuel subsidies.  Stop granting eminent domain special purchasing of land for oil pipelines.  Stop tax breaks for shale gas discovery.  Get rid of indemnification for environmental damage.  Then we'll let the market actually decide.

    You call it BS, but these subsidies, tax breaks and political leverage actually exist.  They're a matter of public record.  The only BS is the fiction that fossil fuel is the better economic solution.
    Happy for all subsidies and tax breaks, and additional taxes on certain sectors to prop up others, to cease for all energy sources. Level the playing field. May the most efficient, cheapest source of energy win.
    Fossil fuels have had a over century of government subsidies and support. Ignoring that while bellyaching about current incentives to move renewables forward as quickly as possible is a bit disingenuous. You aren’t leveling the playing field by cutting off support only after the new guy shows up. 
    Alex_Vtmay
Sign In or Register to comment.