←back to thread

337 points tareqak | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
0xbadcafebee ◴[] No.44470122[source]
The elimination of green energy incentives is going to have a big negative effect on the economy. Those billions of dollars not only were going to new businesses and jobs, but they were joined with loans from banks and commitments from customers with the expectation that the government would be funding the remainder. This means private industry and banks will be shouldering the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars, which, as any astute person should know by now, later gets shouldered by the average citizen in rate hikes, stock market plunges, increased inflation, etc. There goes your job and 401k and here comes more expensive products.

Aside from the direct negative effects: we lose even more to foreign countries who now have even more runway to gain expertise in green energy and sell to everyone else investing in it. Nobody but the 3rd world is increasing investments in coal/oil and there's no money we could make there anyway. So there goes any money we could've made on energy internationally.

Either this country is intentionally being tanked, or we're in the stupidest timeline.

replies(3): >>44470208 #>>44470244 #>>44470248 #
nandomrumber ◴[] No.44470244[source]
What evidence is there of governments being more successful at picking winners than the market?

Governments should stay out of the winner-picking business, which they do with money from the public purse, and allow individuals and enterprise to use their own money to have a go at picking winners themselves.

If industry and banks find investment in any particular field unpalatable without Government incentive, then those investments were unpalatable to start with.

Industry and banks will find something better to do with their money.

replies(4): >>44470270 #>>44470314 #>>44470334 #>>44470349 #
raverbashing ◴[] No.44470349[source]
Cool, cut all the oil subsidies, and road subsidies, and let the market decide
replies(1): >>44470435 #
1. nandomrumber ◴[] No.44470435[source]
Did you know if you run a business (carry on an enterprise) the majority of the costs of doing business are tax deductible.

That's another term subsidised.

I'd argue fossil fuel industry subsidies are a net benefit to society as they help enable cheap reliable energy.

Whereas renewable subsidies are a net negative because they don't. Everywhere more renewables have gone electricity has become more expensive and less reliable, completely antithetical to strong industrial development.

Also, renewables seem to be driven forward largely due to a psychological contagion that a climate apocalypse is nigh, which is turning out to be completely toxic, especially to the minds of the next generations.

replies(1): >>44470507 #
2. tired-turtle ◴[] No.44470507[source]
> Everywhere more renewables have gone electricity has become more expensive and less reliable, completely antithetical to strong industrial development.

Have you heard of Washington state? 75% renewable energy and 10th percentile for the cost per kWh.

replies(1): >>44470585 #
3. jandrewrogers ◴[] No.44470585[source]
Washington is a bit of a special case given that most of their electricity comes from vast hydroelectric resources constructed almost a century ago. That situation doesn’t generalize to other places. It is disingenuous to imply that this is an example relevant to modern energy policy.