What Mark Blyth Got Wrong About Bidenomics and Climate Change
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- Over the last two years, if you had asked Mark Blyth if the Biden administration would ever do anything meaningful to fight climate change, he’d have said “no.” These feelings only got stronger in 2021, after the Democrats failed to pass their first big attempt at climate legislation, known as ‘Build Back Better.’
But then, something changed. The Inflation Reduction Act became law. And despite the name, it’s a decarbonization bill, and a better one than Mark ever thought we were going to get. (It might also reduce inflation, but that’s for another episode).
In this episode, Mark talks with two experts about why climate legislation was finally able to get passed in the United States, and what it means for the country and the planet.
Tim Sahay is a physicist, Senior Policy Manager of Green New Deal Network, and Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. Ted Fertik is a historian, and Senior Strategist for Policy and Research with the Working Families Party. As they both see it, this bill has the potential not just to curb the worst of climate change, but to transform our society.
Watch Mark, Tim, and Ted’s recent event at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
• Bidenomics and Climate...
Link to the slides: drive.google.com/file/d/1INel...
You've been puzzled by Manchin's obstinance on coal?! The man owns coal companies from which he makes millions of dollars. What are you even talking about?
Yes. This whole episode was deeply disappointing in how uncritical it was.
Green capitalism isn’t possible. This isn’t an ideological assertion, it is empirically demonstrable. The problem ultimately, isn’t the climate, it’s the economy, and more accurately economics. The causality is pretty simple. Industrial economies produce waste which is dumped into a shared atmosphere that has the effect of destabilizing natural systems which maintain the equilibrium necessary to support the ecosystems and organisms currently on the planet. And they do this at a compound annual rate of increase. And they will keep doing it as long as wellbeing relies on an economy structured through debt-financed competition.
The corrupt, in any economic system, will ruthlessly go after a compound annual rate of increase, at any cost. The failure is to control it. Never has it been more possible to do so, and never has it been more visible that it isn't being controlled.
Those who could control it, turn a blind eye to offshore damage, and thus has become exacerbated.
Imagine the change, if something as simple as carbon footprint (manufacture and its transport to a national market) was required to be on each good in the marketplace.
It isn't implemented doesn't mean it isn't possible. It only isn't possible with our current politicians - as they're avoiding so much as even the diction of environmentalism in their conversations with the public.
I agree, State Capitalism which is Communism is just as bad if not worse. The solution is another feudal era.
no, it's an ideological assertion.
waste is lost profit. that waste starts as an input you pay for and dumping it into the air is pissing away money.
nuclear is cleaner than gas, which is cleaner than coal, which is cleaner than wale oil, which is cleaner than wood, which is cleaner than peat, which is cleaner than dung. not only are they cleaner, they are also more efficient sources of power. so why aren't we using nuclear? politics, perception, and bad ideological assertions dressed up as "empirically demonstrable".
not only is green capitalism possible, but the drive to out-compete, create more value from the same resources, and ultimately increase profits has created greener systems and products than we had before. because waste is lost profit.
more efficient processes mean less of the input is combined with less energy converted to more or better goods than the previous manufacturing standard. doing this gives you a productive edge over the competition, assuming adequate marketing, increasing not only your profits but also the proliferation of the manufacturing improvements as your competitors respond to your innovation.
@@jaqssmith1666 ??? Waste, according to industry, is someone else's problem. And nothing is bigger than nuclear waste, someone else's problem, for a few thousand years.
"Less is More. How Degrowth Will Save the World" is a book for you.
The world's biggest polluter and fossil fuel user is the US military and its NATO allies. In the transportation sector 70 percent is trucks, trains and the hideous Bunker fuel (the dirtiest) using container ships. Electric cars are marginal. They are beneficial for green capitalism. Take a look at the source of vital minerals for green capitalism, particularly Congo. Here you see not just green capitalism but worse green imperialism. Cui bono?
Mark! Please make an episode about inflation please!
Inflation is a result of the ability of people and corporations with power to raise prices - liabilities - and thus extract more of societies’ a$$ets - our money - for their enrichment. Their enrichment is directly related to the declining well-being of many in our society. They also control the false inflation narrative - that inflation is from the invisible hand of the market place - so push the central banks to raise interest rates signalling the banksters to impose more liabilities in the mythical belief that will cause the people who set prices to stop raising them. The interlocking membership of boards of directors guarantees that they will not lose no matter which way it goes.
Thanks Mark. Great information, real talk.
Hate to be cynical, but even if this is the right direction isn't it still 30 years too late to actually reduce the human suffering and uncertainty climate change is going to bring?
The policy perspective just disregards the climate science, and treats it like a secondary priority that can be met by compromising with other priorities. Otherwise smart people don’t seem to realize that economics is a construct, but climate is geophysics and biochemistry. We can’t know for sure how it unfolds, but they are recklessly gambling with the future because they cannot let go of the past.
@@Rnankn well said
For sanity's sake Mark should listen what Simon Michaux (GTK) has to say about minerals. USA is so ossified society, that it can't adopt metric system let alone cataclysmic "green future". I hope I'm wrong, but condolences just in case.
@@seppojarviluoma8115 Europe and China will beat the USA in the green revolution. The americans simply don't have the industrial capacity to lead this endeavor.
Well, not sure what you point is, but is there any point in continuing to barrel (no pun intended) down a dead (no pun intended) end?
If only they had the brain to try to replace cars with public transport and denser city designs. replacing cars with heavier EVs isn't going to solve much
I have full confidence that our European leaders possess the mental agility necessary to come to grips with the idea that talking about small levels of protectionism can now be done in public instead of in a hushed voice in damp alleys in the middle of the night.
You’re joking aren’t you?
You've heard of import tariffs though, right?
So there's no cap on the tax credits for renewable investment? The headline number for annual renewable spending in the act was about half of US annual spending on pet care - is that misleading, because the amount of "spending" on tax credits is in theory infinite?
Good stuff: the great bottomless mimosas, carrots not sticks......I'm too old to not be skeptical, but listening to this has given me hope...
Yep, the tax discount for EV's will become huge! Very few gas cars will be sold beyond 2028.
Tax all the profit gained from polluting industrial activity. Take every dollar.
Very interesting from UK perspective. Questions commenters might be able to help with - (a) what are the possible perverse incentives in the IRA that may produce unwanted/unexpected outcomes (i.e. are there any holes in the legislation)? (b) is there the possibility that the incentives will result in another massive wealth transfer from households to businesses/shareholders?
(a) yes (b) yes
@@JamesFitzgerald a succinct answer!
@@benday1218 a) Made in America /= by Americans, b) wage theft by hiring foreign workers, who they'll rip off incessantly with little chance of repercussions.
In other words, no change except less carbon creation.
“wealth transfer”
Found the leftist
@@benday1218 yeah not like we could give an example or anything!
considering the carbon inefficiency of roads and cars and the lack of lithium. cars becoming less profitable to manufacture is almost certainly a good thing for Europe if car dependency (the real problem) is going to be tackled.
Building out public transit and rail services would seem obvious, rather than subsidizing another automobile industry. Single user vehicles are simply not justifiable
And trains. And buses.
If we're going to be serious about it, the antique transport systems need to be relegated to museums.
@@Rnankn "Single user vehicles are simply not justifiable"
As they currently exist. There's no good reason we're using two ton vehicles to move 150lb persons. Long overdue, SkyTran. Ditch the paving, insurance, crashes, road kill, registration, etc etc.
@@buzoff4642 Americans will give up their guns before they give up their big, heavy gas guzzlers.
@@rok1475 Taught by the R political party, and industry, to have no faith in reliable... anything. Rs see to manufacturing failure, while industry prepares for it. Ever see a gun shortage, when Rs bullhorn "BOO!"? No.
Name one US major metro with good public transport. It isn't coincidence that any new roadway is built out only to the point of stopping total gridlock, but no more. Let alone sufficient public transport.
US Build Back Better isn't better. How much could be innovated with labor freed up from use of cars/buses/trains, and all the BS they entail?
Great talk! So, how do you provide bottomless Mimosas in Europe / the EU then? Wanna help us out?
The prior bottomless Mimosas, "build/buy eastward at low cost , sell westward at high prices" model blew up, and local and regional needs to produce at the least some of their own essential consumables.
INSANE to call it "effective" to be shipping basic essentials from the other side of the planet. Along with letting it get down to sole source.
The further an item travels to market, the higher the carbon tax it should carry, because Max Profit is ruthless and we're stooopid to put up with it.
Also largely wrong about locating new factories. Sure, a few for West Virginia, but the look at the large factory to be put in the sprawl of Columbus, a city with very substandard transit. And a huge factory to consume water where there is drought outside of Phoenix.
One of these guys is taking a bizarrely sincere read of Joe Manchin. Like he has beliefs to reaffirm or uphold. That's not how any of these people work, perhaps Manchin least of all. That's like taking Mitch McConnell talking about national debt as him wrestling with a sincere belief it passes a burden to younger generations. Maybe Joe Manchin had a heartfelt conversation with his pastor and realized he had to stop cheating on his wife too.
It is wrong again the big problem is overshoot, invite Bill Reese, thanks.
How did I miss this one? I must disagree that the Inflation Reduction Act is transformative. There are a lot of chickens being counted before they are hatched. And local labor will continue to be cut out and vocational schools too small. And ultimately more about subsidies and giveaways for technology purchases than dealing with sprawl, infill housing, inadequate transit and other public policy. Please see "Sustainable Infrastructure Investment: toward a more equitable future" (Routledge 2022)
Will renewables require fossil fuels to develop and scale?
of course, fossils aren't going to dissapear.
@@valdomero738 Funny!
I think the countries with similar standards of living and wages and regulations should have free trade.
I tell you what you did wrong. You left Scotland !
That's not fair. He's a top tier academic in an Ivy League School. And he's publishing too. And he did it on merit. And when he did make himself available to assist the SNP, it didn't go well, which is sad for Scotland and sad for the SNP
I wonder if Katie Forbes had anything to do with that?
@@BigHenFor Wild endorsement of credentialism, but what he has going for him is his curiosity. Which keeps him in growth mode.
I think the "justice" angle is a losing political point because... Well.. the way it winds up framing the issue. It takes a large volume of people who have suffered under 40 years of bad policy, designed to systemically squeeze them of everything. The very people who tried to keep their lives together, their hope for a retirement together with debt, causing the 2008 crash. The "justice policy" is a divisive thing because it takes those people and says to some of them "no no, we aren't going to help you. You are the bad group. We have a new favorite group, we are helping them!" It's essentially telling large swaths of voters that their hurts don't matter. They don't care that some other people might factually have it a bit worse. It's a losing political argument and actually aggravates tribal, bigoted politics in the USA as it pits these poor people against each other viciously fighting each other for one single ounce of pity from their government.
That sounds like a conversation from 2000 on climate. No climate scientist talks like this now. We're so badly behind now mitigation and action are no longer options. We're looking at how to handle mass ecosystem collapse and mass migration
"Inflation reduction Act" at times when inflation is out of bounce. How come nobody makes a crack at the title of this act?
👴
The Inflation Reduction Act will work because it might just deliver some money in the pockets of the little guy instead of your bloviayed billionaires. But the day of cheap money is gone, 2% inflation is gone. If it goes down to 4%, that will be tolerable. But to see 2% again is unlikely for quite a while.
@@BigHenFor "some (extra) money in the pockets of the little guy" will be adding inflationary pressure. Not 'reduce' it all.
Don't get me wrong, i'm on the side of the little guy, hey, i'm a little guy...
But I know that persistent inflation will have a much worse outcome for me, as a little guy, then a recession will, a recession deep enough that it breaks the inflation spiral.
4% persistent inflation is still to much, we need price stability as much as we can achieve.
Macro-alf had a good piece on this matter yesterday. He explained the difference between "real-economy newly printed money" and "financial sector newly printed money".
Explaining or offering a reason why we didn't see a surge in inflation between 2008 and 2020, when the financial sector got constantly flooded with fresh cheap money. Only asset prices rose (houses, stocks, etc). But commodities inflated barely.
Yet, when they parachuted newly printed money in the real-economy (2020-2022) inflation suddenly got out of bounce pretty instant. I think Macro-alf explained the difference pretty well. Worth will looking this up.
On the other hand, the green ideology mixing with economics isn't the best idea. But that's an ideologic discussion ;)
@@Athie0 Bounds, the saying is "out of bounds".
It's fair game.
Ludicrous.
Or when Mark claimed that austerity would cause a 'brown shirt' resurgence in Europe, as if the blatantly fascist climate policies and NATO expansion wasn't staring everyone in the face for at least a decade. oh, didnt see that coming? Lesson: Dont put too much trust in charismatic and overly confident economists, you will end up like Krugman.
Hey hey talks about Overshoot and Collapse. Instead of serving mainstream economics and science. Both of which
are divorced from Nature.