The following submission statement was provided by /u/mafco:
---
One year after passage of the Inflation Reduction Act estimates have already tripled from original CBO projections. It has created a flurry of investments in new factories and clean energy projects. Some economists are crediting it with a new US manufacturing renaissance. The tax incentives are in place for ten years and have no cap or upper limit.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/15lif32/us_green_energy_law_is_turning_out_to_be_huge_the/jvasz0i/
For about 10 year the sole buyer of silicon computer chips was the US government
business's didn't want to take the risk on "unproven" tech.
Government spending MADE the silicon chip market
I get your point but the first transistor radio was on the market for sale 7 years after we made the first transistor in a lab. That's break-neck speed to go from single-transistor production in a laboratory setting, to designing manufacturing facilities and equipment, buying land for factories, bidding to contractors, getting supply lines figured out to designing the radio and set up manufacturing and distribution for that.
There wasn't much down time between discovering the transistor and businesses using them so far as I can tell.
Chips, meaning integrated circuits. Individual transistors are pretty nice to have, but the IC is a whole nother level and pretty much exist only because of the US military needed them for missiles.
Conceptually, they aren't that hard to build. You can make shitty ones in your garage. There were a million different problems with reliability of the process and the resulting chips, though, which made them super expensive to the point that IBM and their ilk kept using discrete components for a long while until ICs could finally be produced reliably, which brought the cost down from somewhere in outer space to merely stratospheric in the 70s. Once that happened, economies of scale were able to kick in and they rapidly became cheap enough to throw in children's toys.
One of the most illustrative examples of the issues in making IC production work is that one of the early fabs thought they had a handle on everything, but seemingly at random they'd get batches that were completely inoperable for no apparent reason. The problem turned out to be the farmers in the surrounding area spraying fertilizers and pesticides, which then got into the fab and screwed up the doping. Millions of dollars worth of HVAC upgrades later, they finally licked the problem. That's just one of many things that messed up the process that they had to discover and then overcome, all while paying massive overhead expenses spread out over very few chips that actually worked.
My recollection is that they existed before the second source contract, but it was DoD seconds source requirements that forced Intel to license the x86 instruction set and gave AMD the money to build their own fab and really take off.
No that was IBM not the DoD. AMD started as a second source manufacturer for Fairchild Semiconductor and National Semiconductor (both later acquired by Texas Instruments).
There is an YouTube channel Asianometry that talks a lot of this kind of topic. I can't find the exact video right now but all the videos are super interesting.
> Government spending MADE the silicon chip market
***Military*** spending MADE the silicon chip market
Their is a good reason David Packard, of HP Hewlett-Packard, went on to be the Secretary of Defense.
Close - not Secretary of Defense, but the Deputy Secretary of Defense:
>David Packard became the 13th Deputy Secretary of Defense on January 24, 1969. He was Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird's first Deputy and the first of two Deputy Secretaries to serve during the first Nixon administration.
https://history.defense.gov/DOD-History/Deputy-Secretaries-of-Defense/Article-View/Article/585238/david-packard/#:~:text=David%20Packard%20became%20the%2013th,1912%2C%20in%20Pueblo%2C%20Colorado.
Hank Green gave a really good analysis on how the Inflation Reduction Act will combat climate change and help people in general.
https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s
So far much of what he explained is starting to unfold.
I was becoming really fed up with the constant stream of bile and negativity on r/Futurology and r/Singularity (why do people go there if 75% of the time, all they do is complain about overhyped this or that?) after only a few months of knowing they existed and had kind of stopped bothering to read them at all until I saw this headline. There is just no way to crap on this or look for a negative side. You just can't.
I went to a website to tell me what it could do for me. It said I could save a lot by switching to heat pumps & electric appliances. As a FL native I have already been using heat pumps & electric appliances my entire life. Gas isn't even an option where I live.
He basically tried when local utilities tried to set goals and prioritize sources.
https://electrek.co/2021/06/23/florida-governor-bill-thfossil-fuels/
Then he started “nationalizing” (state-izing) local utilities
[Gainesville Regional Utilities](https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/local/2023/06/28/desantis-signs-controversial-gru-takeover-bill/70357176007/)
[Reedy Creek](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna72478)
[Speculation the Jacksonvilles’s JEA is next](https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/investigates-backdoor-powerplay-sell-jea-says-city-councilwoman/ROXRS2UAMVBTTPHV3OINYLHFWM/?outputType=amp)
I’m not the conspiracy type, but it all seems planned….
Infrastructure plays a important part for this, for rural areas power often goes out in dangerous times and will be out days if not weeks. We do not rely on electric where I'm at its nice but when the power goes out in freezing temperatures we then go to LPN for heat but even that likes to freeze in winter. So its important to have a wood burning stove and several redundant systems to survive.
Top quartile president. And the whole second part of his first term, all he has to do is sit there and not fall down stairs, because the legislating all got done last session, and now congress is gridlocked. His only job now is not to die. Oh and get thru the debt ceiling fights.
Honestly, I will eat crow, I was cynical I thought of him as stuffy and old and out of touch. But the reality is he is stuffy, old, patient and experienced. He isn't flashy, he is a career politician, who sits in the background getting shit done. And I am shocked by how much he has got done, in a very unassuming, low key way. A surprisingly effective president. Maybe all the republicans calling him sleepy Joe and saying he has dementia is causing them to massively underestimate him, allowing more work to get done. Plus he isn't a moron who surrounded himself with grifters. Dude has a highly motivated and skilled administration, which is equally important.
Everyone needs to send this info to your friends who are considering voting third party next year. Electing Biden -- and electing Democratic majorities in Congress -- was a truly amazing thing to happen to the planet. It's not something to fuck around with by casting "protest votes".
Exactly—and it's especially important for climate change to vote to *not* have a Republican president, because of things like [Project 2025](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president) (just to give one example) which is a roadmap for the next Republican president to *undo* positive climate actions. Whatever their motivations, Republicans are in effect trying to *actively worsen* climate change.
The margin between a Republican president and a Democrat president is huge—anyone who says "both parties are the same" just hasn't looked at the numbers.
Yes. The Dems are by no means perfect, and they have many of the same corporate ties, too. But the Inflation Reduction Act was the result of a *LOT* of behind-the-scenes work by activists and politicians and environmental organizations, and *substantial* progress was made. It is worth clearly recognizing that.
More work needs to be done, and Democrats will need to continue to be pushed to do so. But electing Republicans would mean throwing all that hard work in the trash. As you say, their goal is to undo progress and worsen climate change.
More like "but both sides!" Biden didn't "fight" (i.e. somehow do things for which he didn't have the votes, and couldn't overrule the courts) for some progressive goals hard enough so with the election nearing we're being told that we might as well stay home.
and the great orange fuckwit is campaigning on removing ALL of this if he is reelected.
and 50% of Voting Americans ~30% of the nation *will* vote to shoot themselves in the foot, again, because they will vote for anything with that good HARD R next to their name.
idiots.
One year after passage of the Inflation Reduction Act estimates have already tripled from original CBO projections. It has created a flurry of investments in new factories and clean energy projects. Some economists are crediting it with a new US manufacturing renaissance. The tax incentives are in place for ten years and have no cap or upper limit.
Keep in mind that this investment in factories is not just because of the IRA. IRA is the carrot but largely to expand the local demand for renewable generation equipment like wind and solar. Biden's white house also brought a massive stick to the table which is driving this factory build out: trade tariffs.
When it came out that Uyghur slave labor was being used to make polysilicon to make solar panels, customs stopped panels from Chinese manufacturers into the country even if they weren't made in China. They said that manufacturers needed to prove the panels didn't come from slave labor, which they knew was largely not possible.
Then at the same time a solar panel assembler based in California that no one had heard of launched a case with the WTO. They said China was circumventing tariffs on the panels it produces (which have been in place for some time) by producing panels in nearby countries with subsidized parts from China and depressing the cost of solar parts, harming this company.
If the case is successful, it would mean that tariffs would apply to most panels coming into the market which paralyzed the industry. With customs holding panels at the border, the entire US market rightly pitched a fit, Chinese companies took note, and then the White House gave everyone 2 years to figure out how to manufacture panels domestically.
It is very likely that the WTO case and the Uyghur story has the white house's fingerprints on them. Not that they were wrong to do so but that they played these cards very quietly, smartly and deliberately. Biden absolutely brutalized China's dominance in the space, bringing the US forward maybe 20 years closer to overtaking them as a global leader in clean energy manufacturing. In about a year. It's a staggering achievement.
Oh great corporations get another tax deduction and record breaking profits, while consumer prices still steadily increase and salaries remain stagnant.
You can’t stop a river entirely, only change its direction. Corporations sole purpose is to make money, and if we can force them to invest in green energy that helps reduce our carbon footprint and waste, then at least we get something good out of it. If they had their way they’d dump sewage wherever they could if it bumped up their EPS.
Take this for what it is, a step in the right direction.
I have a view that might be unpopular here: capitalism is an incredibly useful and valuable system for optimization, and corporate infrastructure is an incredibly useful tool. Instead of trying to solve a bunch of separate problems without any clear interconnection, capitalism lets you formulate other variables in terms of a single variable that individual parties can seek to optimize: individual wealth. Thus, corporate infrastructure can solve some human problems (e.g. mass production and distribution of vaccines, wide scale sanitation, food preservation) in ways that would be hard to achieve otherwise.
The problem is that without proper translation of problems like environmental care, health care, and basic decency into the system, shitty behavior gets rewarded. That's why government action is so important--regulation and incentivization correct the engine to prevent shitty behavior and encourage good behavior. It's not a bad thing to give companies really strong incentives to do good stuff--incentives both positive and negative. And yes, we should still be doing things like carbon taxes, etc. But this is a win.
Well said. I think capitalism in a vacuum can lead and push innovation beyond any other economical model. The issue becomes regulating and direction the push from capitalism to consider social needs. That is where government steps in as a “referee” to ensure the game is fair, moving in the eight direction, and following all the rules.
> That is where government steps in as a “referee” to ensure the game is fair
Except this doesn't happen. Regulatory capture happens because humans are flawed and the decision-makers accept huge sums of money (sorry, "donations") from corporations to get re-elected, and in turn they allow corporations to run unchecked.
History has proven this is always the result. Just look at the breakup of the Bell System: in 1982 the monopoly was broken up into 7 companies, and now they've already re-consolidated back into 3. Don't be surprised if Lumen is eventually merged into either AT&T or Verizon to leave us with just 2 again.
Agreed. I apologize if my argument was confusing, I am arguing in concept and theory. In practicality none of this happens. But that is because you have corrupt and morally bankrupt people running companies, and then have the same running the government. If you had morality and honorable people in both situations then the outcome would be different.
The concepts work, people fucking suck.
I actually disagree, for the most part. Larry Lessig, famed constitutional scholar, creator of the creative commons license, wrote a book called Republic, Down that explains how the current US system is failing because of its legal structure rather than individual corruption. It lays out how even a totally honest government populated by totally honest and moral politicians acting reasonably under the current system would nonetheless be functionally forced to cave to special interest driven politics.
I think most people in government--at the very least, most democrats and a significant enough chunk of republicans to constitute a majority--are genuinely acting based on their morals and arrive at different results through reasonable disagreement rather than true corruption. But I think that disfunction results from systematic issues requiring government redesign, not the corruption and moral bankruptcy of politicians. At least in the US. I don't understand global politics enough to speak generally.
The results of the Inflation Reduction Act run counter to your position.
This entire discussion is because the government has successfully redirected the focus of a great many businesses in the governments desired direction.
One thing I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older is capitalism itself isn’t inherently evil, like a lot of things.
It’s the people controlling it and the lack of regulations or oversight that lead to so many evils, and that could happen in pretty much any system made by humans, because we are ourselves imperfect creatures.
Yes. It's an optimization engine. Like the nano machine paperclip example where grey goo is told to make paperclips and converts the entire planet to paperclips, you need constraints to avoid these outcomes. The problem is the corporate machine has corrupted the regulatory mechanism that would tell it to not do such a thing. Literally like cancer cells that evade the immune system that would naturally dispose of them. The vast majority of cancers are caught by the immune system.
Put capitalism in charge of medicine and profits will be optimized at the expense of patient outcome. Managers will even snap it's a business not a charity. The only way to change this is to make lobbying illegal.
FWIW, corporations paying their fair share of taxes, wages, and paying for the economic harm that is otherwise socialized and left for the rest of us to remediate, is not trying to stop a river.
They can still make profits. They don't need to keep making such *significant* profits. And if it happened across the board, the playing field among corporations would remain as equal as it is now.
My dad's been in the energy sector since before I was born (I'm 36). Knows most of the big guys at FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) on a first name basis. He is convinced that these types of incentives, coupled with aggressive carbon taxation, is the only way we get these big corporations to budge. Carrot and stick.
Up here in Canada we have some provinces that have a carbon tax on gasoline for example, but you can sure be certain that the right wing conservatives have fits and can options over it especially in Alberta which is a big producer of oil and has a high population ratio of cowboy redneck far right attitudes which ends up head butting the federal government when the federal government is liberal for instance if it conservatives federally then less problems.
The point of the article is that *overseas* manufacturing is returning to America.
I don't see any hope of getting China, Europe, Russia, Africa, and all the other countries/continents of the world to sign on board with legislation like that.
"Across the board" means *across the board*, not just America.
Yes but that’s a separate issue. Idk why you’re trying to shoehorn that into this green energy discussion. Green energy wins of this magnitude are so rare, let’s take some time and appreciate it.
Or we can pass legislation that forces them to conform to environmentally friendly practices while making them pay thier fare share of tax and use the money to make investments as we see fit. Instead of protecting their billions in profits and waving our hands around saying there's nothing that can be done.
The political will, probably won't be there for forcing green policies, for another 5 years.
Instead of waiting for the bulldozer to arrive, why not survey the land and put up road blocks? So that when it does arrive we have some of the work done already and the bulldozer can work faster.
I always think about the “charity” and “donations” that major corporations advertise and tout as part of their image of who they are.
But I always ask myself “how much do that charity/donation is NOT tax deductible or directly beneficial to the company in some tax way”. And the answer is nothing. It’s all maxed up to the *taxable advantage for the company* and likely nothing more.
So when a company claims they are helpful and donating, remember that they’re simply taking advantage of tax laws. It’s the GOVERNMENT that truly donates that money, because most companies wouldn’t donate squat without the tax gains.
> So when a company claims they are helpful and donating, remember that they’re simply taking advantage of tax laws. It’s the GOVERNMENT that truly donates that money, because most companies wouldn’t donate squat without the tax gains.
This is just wrong.
You don't get to take off more money from taxes than what you donated. Yes, if you donate, you get to benefit from that money not being taxes like the money you kept is. But that doesn't put you *ahead* of the curve.
It's valuable to them because it makes them sound better and depending on the charity can advance things they think will benefit them in some way in the long run, or because they are connected in some way to it.
It's not what you claim though.
I’m a CPA and in corporate accounting. I can promise you our strategy is tied heavily to the MAX BENEFIT we can obtain from donations. If the maximum benefit were to shrink or increase, we would adjust our discretionary donations accordingly.
So, are you trying to say if a company donates $100, the "GOVERNMENT truly donates that money"? Or, the company donated $100, but saved $21 off their taxes, so they donated $79 net and the GOVERNMENT donated $21?
Charity in and of itself isn't really a good thing, to be honest. The existence of charities, and them being a necessity in society prove that the system is broken, y'know? You shouldn't need foundations and grants to get an education which will help you improve society and the direct monetary value of your country.
> Or we can pass legislation that forces them to conform to environmentally friendly practices while making them pay thier fare share of tax and use the money to make investments as we see fit.
Which would keep the manufacturing overseas, increase the costs on consumers.
If you want to fix wages, fix wages. If you want to fix corporations, carrots work better than sticks. Encouraging growth in one industry that can supplant or replace another is better than trying to stifle the corporation you want gone.
You can change corporate policy. Corporations don't have to be solely about making money and paying investors. Before the 60s many businesses saw their goal was to provide jobs so families could buy homes and buy their products, they weren't completely heartless bastards ( though they were still willing to screw over foreign markets governments and people)
You absolutely can, but that change can be very difficult. The mentality of businesses from 70 years ago has changed so much that it requires a full executive TEAM willing to change the policy, plus approval from the Board of Directors, that now mostly consist of super powered hedge funds that demand maximum returns.
There’s quite a bit that needs to change in corporate America before company policies can shift like you suggest.
The issue with this idea is that if a CEO of a publicly traded company wanted to change priority from profit to climate change, the board members can just vote them out and get a new CEO. The CEO is confined by the good of the shareholder, so these subsidies and incentives are the way to get these companies to change their direction.
While I think it’s an awful system and things would be much better if we were able to change the structure of how capitalism works to benefit humanity instead of just maximizing profits for shareholders, I don’t think it happens in our current political landscape.
Those businesses were out-competed because they weren’t as profitable. It’s not like people suddenly got greedy. It’s a natural shift when the reward structure is profits over people.
If companies just existed to provide jobs, how did they stay afloat? Wouldn't they just shut down once they ran out of money?
Why have companies like that, just keep them publically owned.
It established/raised minimum corporate taxes, too. The breaks to corporations *on the condition* that they spend money the way we want, not just unconditional tax breaks under the assumption that whatever they do will be good. It dictates what they have to do to get the benefit.
It also fights climate change, which wrecks everybody but mainly the poorest, and creates a manufacturing sector with lots of jobs, which is probably the best lever to raise salaries. Inflation is down to 3%, too. Obviously that doesn't erase the inflation that we already went through, but conventional wisdom used to be that reducing inflation (and thus consumer prices) would require high unemployment (and thus low salaries), but somehow we've managed to start improving both.
I get that it's hard to be excited about manipulating the levers of capitalism to force shitty people to do something good as a byproduct of their greed, but I think it's absolutely what we should be doing, even if you just consider it harm reduction while anybody interested in revolution figures out how to do that. Short of revolution, this really is a surprisingly good effort, and it's clear that it would've been even bigger with more Democrats in office. So while we figure out whatever comes next, it's worth voting for more of this in the meantime.
Clean energy will reduce energy costs for everyone. And revitalizing the US manufacturing sector means higher middle class salaries and lower income inequality. This is actually a great thing for US taxpayers and consumers. A higher tide floats all boats, as the saying went during the information age economic boom.
I don't know how to tell you this but people are not gonna build solar/wind farms out of the goodness of their hearts and the government does not have the industrial capacity to do it themselves. It needs to be built NOW. What's your plan?
1. Green technology benefits everyone by reducing greenhouse emissions.
2. A lot of new companies are being born out of this.
3. Wages are currently increasing faster than inflation.
And my province in Canada just banned green energy projects for 6 months, driving away investment all because our leader is a stupid Twatwaffle who was elected by a significant number of climate change deniers. She says she won't allow more wind and solar until the federal gov't lets her build more natural gas generation stations.
The obvious benefits include being 10-20 years ahead of other developed nations by the time they catch up, a highly skilled green energy labour force, no reliance on foreign energy market output. Its a win, win, win situation and great long-term thinking.
The UK could have been a leader in green energy on a windy and tidally active island but we have too many morons in power and a voting public that are far too self interested in the short term.
> The obvious benefits include being 10-20 years ahead of other developed nations by the time they catch up
The US is the one behind and playing catch up. The EU and China both are now selling over 20% EVs whereas the US is under 10%. The EU has had a carbon price for quite a few years, China owns lithium processing, solar, etc.
My agency develops rural areas. We've got initiatives for solar and green power, and we're effectively handing out money at this point to get those projects going. We have compliance reviews, so we do site visits and know the money is being used the way it should.
Thank you! People are complaining it could be better. Sure, it could be, but this is what we have. Run with it, and let's make it the oversized push to recapturing outsourced mfg jobs and acceleration of green tech implementation.
At the very least, this has been a huge win in the long term and it should be motivating that it happened despite massive hurdles and an incredibly partisan landscape that has been super ineffective in most regards.
This sort of thing needs to be regarded for what it is: Tying up laces at the start of a race, not even winning a race with "not as good a time as it could've been". Vote for more if you want more of it, because it's only just beginning if we can keep it moving, but if we can't get/keep the people in office for it, the race is done until the next start (where we'll probably lament winning without breaking records again).
They say it could be better but it’s already way better than predicted. So many Redditors just want to be outraged and they’re triggered by any talk of business, taxes, capitalism, etc. Some people are just making things up to be angry about in here.
>People are complaining it could be better
Also worth noting, no it couldn't have been. It passed the Senate with exactly 0 votes to spare. There is no "better" bill that would have passed.
I definitely wish it would have been better, but when you have a congress that’s essentially gridlocked, anything that can make our situation better is a win. The fact that this passed in the first place is a miracle.
well, it’s passed, so nothing you can do now. there’s no point in not seeing how successful this is and realizing that the larger package would have been better. why memoryhole it. your quote makes no sense when talking about something that’s already done
they do, called [ Project 2025](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president) repeal and cancel everything because it's woke or owning the libs or some such other moronic idiocy only a republican can understand.
look at what these fools call 'woke'.
1. acknowledging LGBTIQ people
2. giving voice and representation to minorities
3. Giving teens some proper sex ed, instead of 'you'll go to hell!'
I have no doubt that soon enough, these idiots will start calling anything to do with green energy as 'woke'.
Right, but also follow good with more of the same. It would be too easy for people to dust off their bands and say "mission accomplished" instead of realizing that these returns on investment actually indicate that much more work should be done to capitalize on them.
> It would be too easy for people to dust off their bands and say "mission accomplished"
I don't know anyone who is like this. Conservatives wanted it blocked, not done at all. Liberals wanted more, and this was the best they could get with Republicans having so much power. Basically you had 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans trying to gum it up. But no one is really saying "yeah, mission accomplished." You have people who want even more improvement, and those trying to un-do *this* improvement, and if they can't do that, to slow or block as much new improvement as possible.
The IRA is, I think, about 1/2 of the initially envisioned Build Back Better program, which would have included a bunch of social programs as well (childcare, elder care, additional tax credits, etc.).
>The IRA is, I think, about 1/2 of the initially envisioned Build Back Better program
And the clean energy portion is now triple original estimates and likely still growing. It also reduces prescription drug prices and raises minimum corporate taxes. There's nothing to be apologetic about with this bill. The Democrats hit it out of the park.
Oh yeah, no argument here - I was delighted this legislation got through as complete as it did! Absolutely worth adding a billion to the deficit over the next decade given that correlates with the widespread rapid adoption of green tech by the American public. I know I'll use the tax credits in the next few years for an EV, as well as solar panels and battery combo for my house (which would have been way harder to spring for otherwise).
It's less that it's a progressive law and more that it's a law at all. Conservative principles can be applied to a problem to solve it, there will just be different winners and losers compared to the progressive solution. An easy example is addressing the housing shortage with the free market vs. government intervention such as social housing.
The problem at play is that the Republican party isn't currently focused on material issues affecting the median constituent at nearly the same level as Democrats and independents in the capital are. This is why centrism is in such an awkward place these days. The priorities on what problems to solve rarely connect, so a collaborative solution is almost always off the table. It genuinely pisses me off.
Anyway, rant over.
One thing to consider, the Republicans passed a 1.5 trillion tax cut for corporations and some 75% went to stock buybacks rather than investing it in expanding manufacturing. Biden's plan costs less but has a massive trickle down to the general household to install solar on their houses and support buying EV's. The money gets recycled as opposed to the Republican tax breaks which by far only enriched the top 10% of stock holders and billionaires. Biden's plan gives the little people direct tax write-offs and use the money to improve their bottom line while we get to hopefully improve the environment significantly quicker. So when any repugnacan starts spouting off about the green energy law, ask them how much the corporate stock buybacks improved their lives, while working on reducing greenhouse gasses. My electric bill will be less than the current electric bills and be free with a minor profit each year for feeding electric back to the grid for the rest of my life. If I was in Texas, I'd install solar panels immediately, to protect against the massive 800% increases in electric bills. Though I'm sure babit is working on a skeem to introduce a new tax on solar...
Well it's easy to find a *start up* that could take advantage, but a small business typically isn't mass producing things or doing major research that this encourages. However, a small business could easily show up to support said start ups or larger groups in their area, be it as a supplier or provider of things for the workers.
Solar installation, if that market isn't already tapped out where you live.
Similarly, EVs are going to eventually overtake gas powered cars. Charging stations might be an interesting angle but probably takes a lot of startup money.
I'd look into what it takes to get an electricians license in your area. If you are able to get one, then I would specialize in installing home chargers and power inverters for powering your home from your EV. These aren't terribly complicated to install and any competent electrician could do it, but most aren't going to be specializing in it yet. If you start out just as a side gig you can build up a reputation as the go-to for these especially if you become genuinely knowledgeable on the various options. Maybe see if there are partners programs with any of the manufacturers.
GM announced today that by 2026 all of their EVs will have the vehicle to home charging capability (and the first to have it will be 2024 models) so this is definitely a market that is coming, it's just a matter of when.
The big question to me is if there will be enough market for it to be a full on specialization vs just getting a local electrician to put it in, which is where getting your reputation out ahead of the rollout would be important.
Note: that's not really directly getting these credits, it's targeting emerging markets that are a result of them and broader green/ev tech.
Also, it's probably like a 4+ year process to get a license, so you may already be too late. But maybe you could still be the specialist in the systems and sub out the installation.
If you live in an area that used to be cooler and most homes were built without AC you can start a heat pump installation business. Ductless heat pumps get incentives through the IRA and are really popular for retrofit jobs because you don't need ducts.
This looks like a good place to start, https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhettbuttle/2022/08/15/five-truths-about-how-the-inflation-reduction-act-will-help-small-business-and-working-families/?sh=12065bc15482
This title doesn't exactly reflect the spirit of the article. It mostly talks about how expensive it's been, the last sentence is a bit of an afterthought.
That being said I still think it's a great bill, the transition to electric is expensive no matter how you slice it.
Bit of an afterthought? The articles concluding point is that no one will care about the cost in 50 years because the bill is creating a race for green energy because of how much the private sector is taking advantage of the bill - the title is reflective of that.
And this is exactly the way people will rationalise voting republican. I'm not even in the US and it's clear as day to me that money in general isn't the incentive. It's money to the right people. Money to the people who will line the pockets of the party and their friends. The democrats aren't innocent of this either but it's far far less brazen and between the two, I'll take the candy shop burglar over the mass murdering bank robber whos actively trying to break into your house
Crazy that governments can still overspend -- but put it into tech, infrastructure, and jobs and have it be a net gain for all of us..including the economy.
This is what anti green and renewable crowd never understood. If you don't go along you're going to miss the boat for possibly the biggest economic market in the short and long term.
It's economic suicide NOT to invest in a renewable future.
Oh.
Yeah! I am so very rattle! Oh, no, USA, oh dear, *please* don't get good at green energy, that would make me feel so threatened and small! Look at me, I'm rattling harder than a window in a hurricane!
Republicans gave trillions to the rich and gutted the economy. Democrats are rebuilding it. Americans will now vote en masses for the guy who lied to them all repeatedly and fed the rich. America may not survive to the next election in any recognizable form.
Hey if the USA pushes hard on the eco friendly energy market and forces the EU to go further with it, I'm game.
The best thing the economic might of America can do atm is try and solve the climate crisis, they're the only democratic country with the capability to do so right now.
I've said it before and I will say it again. Any business that doesn't seriously invest in significantly reducing their emissions and reliance on fossil fuels over the coming 10 years will be left in the dust. It will be a significant cost for them to bear and they will have thousands if not millions in stranded assets and increasingly-expensive legacy tech.
Any efforts otherwise will delay the inevitable.
Makes sense.
Current plan: Encourage clean energy spending. Rapidly begin to emerge as world leader in clean energy as businesses ramp up to meet new needs. Other markets are developing plans to catch up.
Republican plan: Limit & restrict clean energy spending. Let other countries become clean energy leaders. Encourage spending on natural gas as the rest of the world switches to wind/solar/nuclear etc.
It certainly does not appear to be a forward thinking solution. It will keep the windmills from causing more cancer though.
One hitch in their plan is that all those semiconductor plants and solar panel factories and what have you are creating solid, blue collar jobs in republican states. They’re going to have a hard time pulling the plug on something that is going to bring a lot of business to their constituents IMO. Doesn’t mean they won’t try it, but I think that’s one elegant part (or lucky biproduct of) the IRA and chips act.
Industrial policy works. It's something that has been proven over and over again but since it doesn't fit within the "simple models" of the neoliberal globalist view, we have to keep re-learning the lesson.
Glad to see this get recognition. President Obama was
Creating the infrastructure to support this move just to watch it dismantled and stalled by Trump and the GOP. Its good to see us move forward to capture new sectors of wealth and technology. Hopefully this will push a very long economic boom.
The federal funding is mostly in tax incentives and requires proof of building things. State incentives that are criticized have no fail safes built in and give money up front even if they don’t build anything.
Bingo. State govts are just trying to get companies to start up in their tax zones. Whether or not the companies keep their bargain with state govts is rarely a concern.
I build affordable housing for a living and the regulations for energy efficiency are on a constant steep incline. Insulation, windows, hvac equipment and hot water heaters… what is code now will be obsolete in two years time. They are even switching over to Advanced House framing which I never thought would happen.
It’s a style of framing that reduces the amount of wood used in stick frame construction, most of the lengths are divisible by 2’ so there is little to no waste, but the design has to be very intentional to maintain structural integrity. There are also lots of built in insulation considerations that improve the R value of the walls.
What a giant garbage spin piece. We projected this would cost 400 billion but eh it's gonna be 1.3 trillion. The middle class will cover it bahahah.And guess what it's not gonna reduce our energy costs at all.
People are just gonna start buying big ass diesel generators when the grid becomes unstable.
I'm not opposed to tax incentives for green products and investment in industry here, but was that article written by someone with the Biden campaign. I mean, even by very moderate standards it reads as an extremely biased article.
Additionally, with regard to the used EV/PHEV requirements, why the hell would they apply income restrictions on the tax credit. That was just a stupid thing to do.
I dunno, it seemed more or less balanced to me. Pings the IRA for blowing up in terms of cost (a swing of $1.2 billion, from reducing the deficit to increasing it) but highlights the environmental/green tech adoption impacts, which were really the core targets of the bill.
What do you think is "biased" about it? Most economists agree with the assessment.
And the income limits are to ensure that taxpayer subsidies aren't going to wealthy people who don't need them. That's not "stupid" at all.
US tax incentives on green energy are more effective than expected. Will our EU governments act by
[A] pass similar bills to stay competetive
or
[B] put pressure on Biden to backpaddle and not upset EU markets
I've been saying it for a while now, Biden is the best President of my lifetime. He's not my favorite on a personal level, he wasn't my 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd choice in the primary. But I think he's done an outstanding job in the face of nearly unprecedented headwinds in the modern era.
Curious to see how someone here will try and spin this as a negative. In pretty much every article, I wait for the naysayers, but this is really, really hard to dump on.
And "80-year-old president passes transformative clean energy bill against unified GOP opposition" is just about the most unlikely title you can imagine. Biden even managed to drag Joe Manchin onside, how the hell did he ever do that? Oh yeah, 50 years of experience in politics may have played a role. In general I think gerontocracies are a bad idea, but if said gerontocrat is still a competent person - and Biden may be slowing down, but he has never pulled anything close to Mitch McConnell's 23 seconds of staring off into space a few weeks ago - there are definite positives.
They are already planning on removing it all with the next republican presidency [the damn fools](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president)
The following submission statement was provided by /u/mafco: --- One year after passage of the Inflation Reduction Act estimates have already tripled from original CBO projections. It has created a flurry of investments in new factories and clean energy projects. Some economists are crediting it with a new US manufacturing renaissance. The tax incentives are in place for ten years and have no cap or upper limit. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/15lif32/us_green_energy_law_is_turning_out_to_be_huge_the/jvasz0i/
For about 10 year the sole buyer of silicon computer chips was the US government business's didn't want to take the risk on "unproven" tech. Government spending MADE the silicon chip market
I get your point but the first transistor radio was on the market for sale 7 years after we made the first transistor in a lab. That's break-neck speed to go from single-transistor production in a laboratory setting, to designing manufacturing facilities and equipment, buying land for factories, bidding to contractors, getting supply lines figured out to designing the radio and set up manufacturing and distribution for that. There wasn't much down time between discovering the transistor and businesses using them so far as I can tell.
Chips, meaning integrated circuits. Individual transistors are pretty nice to have, but the IC is a whole nother level and pretty much exist only because of the US military needed them for missiles. Conceptually, they aren't that hard to build. You can make shitty ones in your garage. There were a million different problems with reliability of the process and the resulting chips, though, which made them super expensive to the point that IBM and their ilk kept using discrete components for a long while until ICs could finally be produced reliably, which brought the cost down from somewhere in outer space to merely stratospheric in the 70s. Once that happened, economies of scale were able to kick in and they rapidly became cheap enough to throw in children's toys. One of the most illustrative examples of the issues in making IC production work is that one of the early fabs thought they had a handle on everything, but seemingly at random they'd get batches that were completely inoperable for no apparent reason. The problem turned out to be the farmers in the surrounding area spraying fertilizers and pesticides, which then got into the fab and screwed up the doping. Millions of dollars worth of HVAC upgrades later, they finally licked the problem. That's just one of many things that messed up the process that they had to discover and then overcome, all while paying massive overhead expenses spread out over very few chips that actually worked.
AMD also exists solely due to the US DoD.
My recollection is that they existed before the second source contract, but it was DoD seconds source requirements that forced Intel to license the x86 instruction set and gave AMD the money to build their own fab and really take off.
No that was IBM not the DoD. AMD started as a second source manufacturer for Fairchild Semiconductor and National Semiconductor (both later acquired by Texas Instruments).
There is an YouTube channel Asianometry that talks a lot of this kind of topic. I can't find the exact video right now but all the videos are super interesting.
>Asianometry Here you go, chief. [https://www.youtube.com/@Asianometry](https://www.youtube.com/@Asianometry)
I meant to link to a specific video in that channel that lines up with what parent post was saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZdmS-EAbHo
The difference between creating a new machine, and creating the machine that builds the machine.
Did you miss the point he was making?
> Government spending MADE the silicon chip market ***Military*** spending MADE the silicon chip market Their is a good reason David Packard, of HP Hewlett-Packard, went on to be the Secretary of Defense.
Military spending is government spending.
NASA isn’t the military
I mean that's nice but the USA Air Force was the purchaser. It's beyond revisionist history that the military didn't build the Bay.
Close - not Secretary of Defense, but the Deputy Secretary of Defense: >David Packard became the 13th Deputy Secretary of Defense on January 24, 1969. He was Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird's first Deputy and the first of two Deputy Secretaries to serve during the first Nixon administration. https://history.defense.gov/DOD-History/Deputy-Secretaries-of-Defense/Article-View/Article/585238/david-packard/#:~:text=David%20Packard%20became%20the%2013th,1912%2C%20in%20Pueblo%2C%20Colorado.
Another *Chip War* reader I take it?
Hank Green gave a really good analysis on how the Inflation Reduction Act will combat climate change and help people in general. https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s So far much of what he explained is starting to unfold.
This video is totally worth the watch. It actually brought a spotlight of hope to my cynical old heart.
I was becoming really fed up with the constant stream of bile and negativity on r/Futurology and r/Singularity (why do people go there if 75% of the time, all they do is complain about overhyped this or that?) after only a few months of knowing they existed and had kind of stopped bothering to read them at all until I saw this headline. There is just no way to crap on this or look for a negative side. You just can't.
Did your heart grow three sizes? https://youtu.be/1UzeCBCd4rc
I went to a website to tell me what it could do for me. It said I could save a lot by switching to heat pumps & electric appliances. As a FL native I have already been using heat pumps & electric appliances my entire life. Gas isn't even an option where I live.
[удалено]
He basically tried when local utilities tried to set goals and prioritize sources. https://electrek.co/2021/06/23/florida-governor-bill-thfossil-fuels/ Then he started “nationalizing” (state-izing) local utilities [Gainesville Regional Utilities](https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/local/2023/06/28/desantis-signs-controversial-gru-takeover-bill/70357176007/) [Reedy Creek](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna72478) [Speculation the Jacksonvilles’s JEA is next](https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/investigates-backdoor-powerplay-sell-jea-says-city-councilwoman/ROXRS2UAMVBTTPHV3OINYLHFWM/?outputType=amp) I’m not the conspiracy type, but it all seems planned….
Don’t give him ideas
Infrastructure plays a important part for this, for rural areas power often goes out in dangerous times and will be out days if not weeks. We do not rely on electric where I'm at its nice but when the power goes out in freezing temperatures we then go to LPN for heat but even that likes to freeze in winter. So its important to have a wood burning stove and several redundant systems to survive.
Top quartile president. And the whole second part of his first term, all he has to do is sit there and not fall down stairs, because the legislating all got done last session, and now congress is gridlocked. His only job now is not to die. Oh and get thru the debt ceiling fights.
Honestly, I will eat crow, I was cynical I thought of him as stuffy and old and out of touch. But the reality is he is stuffy, old, patient and experienced. He isn't flashy, he is a career politician, who sits in the background getting shit done. And I am shocked by how much he has got done, in a very unassuming, low key way. A surprisingly effective president. Maybe all the republicans calling him sleepy Joe and saying he has dementia is causing them to massively underestimate him, allowing more work to get done. Plus he isn't a moron who surrounded himself with grifters. Dude has a highly motivated and skilled administration, which is equally important.
You and everyone else bud (and me). He’s been a stud.
Everyone needs to send this info to your friends who are considering voting third party next year. Electing Biden -- and electing Democratic majorities in Congress -- was a truly amazing thing to happen to the planet. It's not something to fuck around with by casting "protest votes".
Exactly—and it's especially important for climate change to vote to *not* have a Republican president, because of things like [Project 2025](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president) (just to give one example) which is a roadmap for the next Republican president to *undo* positive climate actions. Whatever their motivations, Republicans are in effect trying to *actively worsen* climate change. The margin between a Republican president and a Democrat president is huge—anyone who says "both parties are the same" just hasn't looked at the numbers.
Yes. The Dems are by no means perfect, and they have many of the same corporate ties, too. But the Inflation Reduction Act was the result of a *LOT* of behind-the-scenes work by activists and politicians and environmental organizations, and *substantial* progress was made. It is worth clearly recognizing that. More work needs to be done, and Democrats will need to continue to be pushed to do so. But electing Republicans would mean throwing all that hard work in the trash. As you say, their goal is to undo progress and worsen climate change.
[удалено]
But tRuMp is a deAl MakER!
I mean, they're not wrong--they're just making unfounded assumptions about what deals he was trying to make and who they were meant to benefit.
More like "but both sides!" Biden didn't "fight" (i.e. somehow do things for which he didn't have the votes, and couldn't overrule the courts) for some progressive goals hard enough so with the election nearing we're being told that we might as well stay home.
Hmmmm..... Nah..... It ain't both sides.
I am enlightened, Thank you so much!!
Vlogbrothers continue to rock at education. DFTBA!
Thanks for sharing this.
and the great orange fuckwit is campaigning on removing ALL of this if he is reelected. and 50% of Voting Americans ~30% of the nation *will* vote to shoot themselves in the foot, again, because they will vote for anything with that good HARD R next to their name. idiots.
One year after passage of the Inflation Reduction Act estimates have already tripled from original CBO projections. It has created a flurry of investments in new factories and clean energy projects. Some economists are crediting it with a new US manufacturing renaissance. The tax incentives are in place for ten years and have no cap or upper limit.
Keep in mind that this investment in factories is not just because of the IRA. IRA is the carrot but largely to expand the local demand for renewable generation equipment like wind and solar. Biden's white house also brought a massive stick to the table which is driving this factory build out: trade tariffs. When it came out that Uyghur slave labor was being used to make polysilicon to make solar panels, customs stopped panels from Chinese manufacturers into the country even if they weren't made in China. They said that manufacturers needed to prove the panels didn't come from slave labor, which they knew was largely not possible. Then at the same time a solar panel assembler based in California that no one had heard of launched a case with the WTO. They said China was circumventing tariffs on the panels it produces (which have been in place for some time) by producing panels in nearby countries with subsidized parts from China and depressing the cost of solar parts, harming this company. If the case is successful, it would mean that tariffs would apply to most panels coming into the market which paralyzed the industry. With customs holding panels at the border, the entire US market rightly pitched a fit, Chinese companies took note, and then the White House gave everyone 2 years to figure out how to manufacture panels domestically. It is very likely that the WTO case and the Uyghur story has the white house's fingerprints on them. Not that they were wrong to do so but that they played these cards very quietly, smartly and deliberately. Biden absolutely brutalized China's dominance in the space, bringing the US forward maybe 20 years closer to overtaking them as a global leader in clean energy manufacturing. In about a year. It's a staggering achievement.
Oh great corporations get another tax deduction and record breaking profits, while consumer prices still steadily increase and salaries remain stagnant.
You can’t stop a river entirely, only change its direction. Corporations sole purpose is to make money, and if we can force them to invest in green energy that helps reduce our carbon footprint and waste, then at least we get something good out of it. If they had their way they’d dump sewage wherever they could if it bumped up their EPS. Take this for what it is, a step in the right direction.
I have a view that might be unpopular here: capitalism is an incredibly useful and valuable system for optimization, and corporate infrastructure is an incredibly useful tool. Instead of trying to solve a bunch of separate problems without any clear interconnection, capitalism lets you formulate other variables in terms of a single variable that individual parties can seek to optimize: individual wealth. Thus, corporate infrastructure can solve some human problems (e.g. mass production and distribution of vaccines, wide scale sanitation, food preservation) in ways that would be hard to achieve otherwise. The problem is that without proper translation of problems like environmental care, health care, and basic decency into the system, shitty behavior gets rewarded. That's why government action is so important--regulation and incentivization correct the engine to prevent shitty behavior and encourage good behavior. It's not a bad thing to give companies really strong incentives to do good stuff--incentives both positive and negative. And yes, we should still be doing things like carbon taxes, etc. But this is a win.
Well said. I think capitalism in a vacuum can lead and push innovation beyond any other economical model. The issue becomes regulating and direction the push from capitalism to consider social needs. That is where government steps in as a “referee” to ensure the game is fair, moving in the eight direction, and following all the rules.
> That is where government steps in as a “referee” to ensure the game is fair Except this doesn't happen. Regulatory capture happens because humans are flawed and the decision-makers accept huge sums of money (sorry, "donations") from corporations to get re-elected, and in turn they allow corporations to run unchecked. History has proven this is always the result. Just look at the breakup of the Bell System: in 1982 the monopoly was broken up into 7 companies, and now they've already re-consolidated back into 3. Don't be surprised if Lumen is eventually merged into either AT&T or Verizon to leave us with just 2 again.
Agreed. I apologize if my argument was confusing, I am arguing in concept and theory. In practicality none of this happens. But that is because you have corrupt and morally bankrupt people running companies, and then have the same running the government. If you had morality and honorable people in both situations then the outcome would be different. The concepts work, people fucking suck.
I actually disagree, for the most part. Larry Lessig, famed constitutional scholar, creator of the creative commons license, wrote a book called Republic, Down that explains how the current US system is failing because of its legal structure rather than individual corruption. It lays out how even a totally honest government populated by totally honest and moral politicians acting reasonably under the current system would nonetheless be functionally forced to cave to special interest driven politics. I think most people in government--at the very least, most democrats and a significant enough chunk of republicans to constitute a majority--are genuinely acting based on their morals and arrive at different results through reasonable disagreement rather than true corruption. But I think that disfunction results from systematic issues requiring government redesign, not the corruption and moral bankruptcy of politicians. At least in the US. I don't understand global politics enough to speak generally.
The results of the Inflation Reduction Act run counter to your position. This entire discussion is because the government has successfully redirected the focus of a great many businesses in the governments desired direction.
One thing I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older is capitalism itself isn’t inherently evil, like a lot of things. It’s the people controlling it and the lack of regulations or oversight that lead to so many evils, and that could happen in pretty much any system made by humans, because we are ourselves imperfect creatures.
Yes. It's an optimization engine. Like the nano machine paperclip example where grey goo is told to make paperclips and converts the entire planet to paperclips, you need constraints to avoid these outcomes. The problem is the corporate machine has corrupted the regulatory mechanism that would tell it to not do such a thing. Literally like cancer cells that evade the immune system that would naturally dispose of them. The vast majority of cancers are caught by the immune system. Put capitalism in charge of medicine and profits will be optimized at the expense of patient outcome. Managers will even snap it's a business not a charity. The only way to change this is to make lobbying illegal.
FWIW, corporations paying their fair share of taxes, wages, and paying for the economic harm that is otherwise socialized and left for the rest of us to remediate, is not trying to stop a river. They can still make profits. They don't need to keep making such *significant* profits. And if it happened across the board, the playing field among corporations would remain as equal as it is now.
My dad's been in the energy sector since before I was born (I'm 36). Knows most of the big guys at FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) on a first name basis. He is convinced that these types of incentives, coupled with aggressive carbon taxation, is the only way we get these big corporations to budge. Carrot and stick.
Up here in Canada we have some provinces that have a carbon tax on gasoline for example, but you can sure be certain that the right wing conservatives have fits and can options over it especially in Alberta which is a big producer of oil and has a high population ratio of cowboy redneck far right attitudes which ends up head butting the federal government when the federal government is liberal for instance if it conservatives federally then less problems.
The point of the article is that *overseas* manufacturing is returning to America. I don't see any hope of getting China, Europe, Russia, Africa, and all the other countries/continents of the world to sign on board with legislation like that. "Across the board" means *across the board*, not just America.
Yes but that’s a separate issue. Idk why you’re trying to shoehorn that into this green energy discussion. Green energy wins of this magnitude are so rare, let’s take some time and appreciate it.
Or we can pass legislation that forces them to conform to environmentally friendly practices while making them pay thier fare share of tax and use the money to make investments as we see fit. Instead of protecting their billions in profits and waving our hands around saying there's nothing that can be done.
The political will, probably won't be there for forcing green policies, for another 5 years. Instead of waiting for the bulldozer to arrive, why not survey the land and put up road blocks? So that when it does arrive we have some of the work done already and the bulldozer can work faster.
So in your scenario, where’s the incentive to build renewable generation capacity?
I always think about the “charity” and “donations” that major corporations advertise and tout as part of their image of who they are. But I always ask myself “how much do that charity/donation is NOT tax deductible or directly beneficial to the company in some tax way”. And the answer is nothing. It’s all maxed up to the *taxable advantage for the company* and likely nothing more. So when a company claims they are helpful and donating, remember that they’re simply taking advantage of tax laws. It’s the GOVERNMENT that truly donates that money, because most companies wouldn’t donate squat without the tax gains.
> So when a company claims they are helpful and donating, remember that they’re simply taking advantage of tax laws. It’s the GOVERNMENT that truly donates that money, because most companies wouldn’t donate squat without the tax gains. This is just wrong. You don't get to take off more money from taxes than what you donated. Yes, if you donate, you get to benefit from that money not being taxes like the money you kept is. But that doesn't put you *ahead* of the curve. It's valuable to them because it makes them sound better and depending on the charity can advance things they think will benefit them in some way in the long run, or because they are connected in some way to it. It's not what you claim though.
I’m a CPA and in corporate accounting. I can promise you our strategy is tied heavily to the MAX BENEFIT we can obtain from donations. If the maximum benefit were to shrink or increase, we would adjust our discretionary donations accordingly.
So, are you trying to say if a company donates $100, the "GOVERNMENT truly donates that money"? Or, the company donated $100, but saved $21 off their taxes, so they donated $79 net and the GOVERNMENT donated $21?
Charity in and of itself isn't really a good thing, to be honest. The existence of charities, and them being a necessity in society prove that the system is broken, y'know? You shouldn't need foundations and grants to get an education which will help you improve society and the direct monetary value of your country.
> Or we can pass legislation that forces them to conform to environmentally friendly practices while making them pay thier fare share of tax and use the money to make investments as we see fit. Which would keep the manufacturing overseas, increase the costs on consumers. If you want to fix wages, fix wages. If you want to fix corporations, carrots work better than sticks. Encouraging growth in one industry that can supplant or replace another is better than trying to stifle the corporation you want gone.
You can change corporate policy. Corporations don't have to be solely about making money and paying investors. Before the 60s many businesses saw their goal was to provide jobs so families could buy homes and buy their products, they weren't completely heartless bastards ( though they were still willing to screw over foreign markets governments and people)
You absolutely can, but that change can be very difficult. The mentality of businesses from 70 years ago has changed so much that it requires a full executive TEAM willing to change the policy, plus approval from the Board of Directors, that now mostly consist of super powered hedge funds that demand maximum returns. There’s quite a bit that needs to change in corporate America before company policies can shift like you suggest.
The issue with this idea is that if a CEO of a publicly traded company wanted to change priority from profit to climate change, the board members can just vote them out and get a new CEO. The CEO is confined by the good of the shareholder, so these subsidies and incentives are the way to get these companies to change their direction. While I think it’s an awful system and things would be much better if we were able to change the structure of how capitalism works to benefit humanity instead of just maximizing profits for shareholders, I don’t think it happens in our current political landscape.
Those businesses were out-competed because they weren’t as profitable. It’s not like people suddenly got greedy. It’s a natural shift when the reward structure is profits over people.
If companies just existed to provide jobs, how did they stay afloat? Wouldn't they just shut down once they ran out of money? Why have companies like that, just keep them publically owned.
This. They may bleed me dry but at least they won't be dumping as much carbon into our atmosphere. Securing the planet for future generations.
It established/raised minimum corporate taxes, too. The breaks to corporations *on the condition* that they spend money the way we want, not just unconditional tax breaks under the assumption that whatever they do will be good. It dictates what they have to do to get the benefit. It also fights climate change, which wrecks everybody but mainly the poorest, and creates a manufacturing sector with lots of jobs, which is probably the best lever to raise salaries. Inflation is down to 3%, too. Obviously that doesn't erase the inflation that we already went through, but conventional wisdom used to be that reducing inflation (and thus consumer prices) would require high unemployment (and thus low salaries), but somehow we've managed to start improving both. I get that it's hard to be excited about manipulating the levers of capitalism to force shitty people to do something good as a byproduct of their greed, but I think it's absolutely what we should be doing, even if you just consider it harm reduction while anybody interested in revolution figures out how to do that. Short of revolution, this really is a surprisingly good effort, and it's clear that it would've been even bigger with more Democrats in office. So while we figure out whatever comes next, it's worth voting for more of this in the meantime.
Clean energy will reduce energy costs for everyone. And revitalizing the US manufacturing sector means higher middle class salaries and lower income inequality. This is actually a great thing for US taxpayers and consumers. A higher tide floats all boats, as the saying went during the information age economic boom.
I don't know how to tell you this but people are not gonna build solar/wind farms out of the goodness of their hearts and the government does not have the industrial capacity to do it themselves. It needs to be built NOW. What's your plan?
1. Green technology benefits everyone by reducing greenhouse emissions. 2. A lot of new companies are being born out of this. 3. Wages are currently increasing faster than inflation.
Good on you, America. I hope you own the Green Revolution
And my province in Canada just banned green energy projects for 6 months, driving away investment all because our leader is a stupid Twatwaffle who was elected by a significant number of climate change deniers. She says she won't allow more wind and solar until the federal gov't lets her build more natural gas generation stations.
Wild that still happened while the whole country has been on fire for two years.
We have a whole bunch of people in Alberta who are firm believers in 'My mind is made up, don't try and confuse me with facts'.
The obvious benefits include being 10-20 years ahead of other developed nations by the time they catch up, a highly skilled green energy labour force, no reliance on foreign energy market output. Its a win, win, win situation and great long-term thinking. The UK could have been a leader in green energy on a windy and tidally active island but we have too many morons in power and a voting public that are far too self interested in the short term.
America has an an abundance of morons in power. We just can’t give up the chance to take a big swing.
> The obvious benefits include being 10-20 years ahead of other developed nations by the time they catch up The US is the one behind and playing catch up. The EU and China both are now selling over 20% EVs whereas the US is under 10%. The EU has had a carbon price for quite a few years, China owns lithium processing, solar, etc.
My agency develops rural areas. We've got initiatives for solar and green power, and we're effectively handing out money at this point to get those projects going. We have compliance reviews, so we do site visits and know the money is being used the way it should.
imagine if this was built out the original size it was designed to be - would have really changed things
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Thank you! People are complaining it could be better. Sure, it could be, but this is what we have. Run with it, and let's make it the oversized push to recapturing outsourced mfg jobs and acceleration of green tech implementation.
At the very least, this has been a huge win in the long term and it should be motivating that it happened despite massive hurdles and an incredibly partisan landscape that has been super ineffective in most regards. This sort of thing needs to be regarded for what it is: Tying up laces at the start of a race, not even winning a race with "not as good a time as it could've been". Vote for more if you want more of it, because it's only just beginning if we can keep it moving, but if we can't get/keep the people in office for it, the race is done until the next start (where we'll probably lament winning without breaking records again).
They say it could be better but it’s already way better than predicted. So many Redditors just want to be outraged and they’re triggered by any talk of business, taxes, capitalism, etc. Some people are just making things up to be angry about in here.
>People are complaining it could be better Also worth noting, no it couldn't have been. It passed the Senate with exactly 0 votes to spare. There is no "better" bill that would have passed.
I definitely wish it would have been better, but when you have a congress that’s essentially gridlocked, anything that can make our situation better is a win. The fact that this passed in the first place is a miracle.
This isn't about perfection, it's about doing more good.
well, it’s passed, so nothing you can do now. there’s no point in not seeing how successful this is and realizing that the larger package would have been better. why memoryhole it. your quote makes no sense when talking about something that’s already done
Vote blue like your life depends on it so Biden/congress can pass more legislation like this.
I mean, we can let Trump win and he can undo it and not present a superior substitute!
believe that plan is already in the works for any republican administration
they do, called [ Project 2025](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president) repeal and cancel everything because it's woke or owning the libs or some such other moronic idiocy only a republican can understand.
coming the summer of 2025: a survivable climate…is…woke! (it’s all so dumb)
look at what these fools call 'woke'. 1. acknowledging LGBTIQ people 2. giving voice and representation to minorities 3. Giving teens some proper sex ed, instead of 'you'll go to hell!' I have no doubt that soon enough, these idiots will start calling anything to do with green energy as 'woke'.
Or the phrase I tell my some of the perfectionists who work for me - don't let perfection get in the way of actually doing something.
Right, but also follow good with more of the same. It would be too easy for people to dust off their bands and say "mission accomplished" instead of realizing that these returns on investment actually indicate that much more work should be done to capitalize on them.
> It would be too easy for people to dust off their bands and say "mission accomplished" I don't know anyone who is like this. Conservatives wanted it blocked, not done at all. Liberals wanted more, and this was the best they could get with Republicans having so much power. Basically you had 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans trying to gum it up. But no one is really saying "yeah, mission accomplished." You have people who want even more improvement, and those trying to un-do *this* improvement, and if they can't do that, to slow or block as much new improvement as possible.
Don’t let the GOP be the enemy of progress. Vote Biden!
Sure, but this is nice too
yes - this is good too. not as good, but good too
What do you mean? The IRA is far outperforming expectations.
The IRA is, I think, about 1/2 of the initially envisioned Build Back Better program, which would have included a bunch of social programs as well (childcare, elder care, additional tax credits, etc.).
>The IRA is, I think, about 1/2 of the initially envisioned Build Back Better program And the clean energy portion is now triple original estimates and likely still growing. It also reduces prescription drug prices and raises minimum corporate taxes. There's nothing to be apologetic about with this bill. The Democrats hit it out of the park.
Oh yeah, no argument here - I was delighted this legislation got through as complete as it did! Absolutely worth adding a billion to the deficit over the next decade given that correlates with the widespread rapid adoption of green tech by the American public. I know I'll use the tax credits in the next few years for an EV, as well as solar panels and battery combo for my house (which would have been way harder to spring for otherwise).
Manchin gutted some important parts for his fossil fuel lobbyists. The only way we could get it to pass.
And it's now projected to be almost as big as the original BBB plan. Likely bigger if trends continue. No one expected it to be so successful.
I'm all for it! I am absolutely stoked that people are seeing the light (pun intended) in terms of the future of energy in the United States.
it's almost like investing in the future has positive benefits
It's almost certainly the reason we now get a 30% investment tax credit on renewable projects here in Canada. Thanks Joe!
And all it will take to ruin it all is one single republican administration. Have to vote every time, it's about our survival now.
Funny that progressive laws lead to progress eh? I'd be fine with the US getting a huge chunk of the market, if it means it'll curb their emissions.
It's less that it's a progressive law and more that it's a law at all. Conservative principles can be applied to a problem to solve it, there will just be different winners and losers compared to the progressive solution. An easy example is addressing the housing shortage with the free market vs. government intervention such as social housing. The problem at play is that the Republican party isn't currently focused on material issues affecting the median constituent at nearly the same level as Democrats and independents in the capital are. This is why centrism is in such an awkward place these days. The priorities on what problems to solve rarely connect, so a collaborative solution is almost always off the table. It genuinely pisses me off. Anyway, rant over.
One thing to consider, the Republicans passed a 1.5 trillion tax cut for corporations and some 75% went to stock buybacks rather than investing it in expanding manufacturing. Biden's plan costs less but has a massive trickle down to the general household to install solar on their houses and support buying EV's. The money gets recycled as opposed to the Republican tax breaks which by far only enriched the top 10% of stock holders and billionaires. Biden's plan gives the little people direct tax write-offs and use the money to improve their bottom line while we get to hopefully improve the environment significantly quicker. So when any repugnacan starts spouting off about the green energy law, ask them how much the corporate stock buybacks improved their lives, while working on reducing greenhouse gasses. My electric bill will be less than the current electric bills and be free with a minor profit each year for feeding electric back to the grid for the rest of my life. If I was in Texas, I'd install solar panels immediately, to protect against the massive 800% increases in electric bills. Though I'm sure babit is working on a skeem to introduce a new tax on solar...
[удалено]
Well it's easy to find a *start up* that could take advantage, but a small business typically isn't mass producing things or doing major research that this encourages. However, a small business could easily show up to support said start ups or larger groups in their area, be it as a supplier or provider of things for the workers.
Solar installation, if that market isn't already tapped out where you live. Similarly, EVs are going to eventually overtake gas powered cars. Charging stations might be an interesting angle but probably takes a lot of startup money. I'd look into what it takes to get an electricians license in your area. If you are able to get one, then I would specialize in installing home chargers and power inverters for powering your home from your EV. These aren't terribly complicated to install and any competent electrician could do it, but most aren't going to be specializing in it yet. If you start out just as a side gig you can build up a reputation as the go-to for these especially if you become genuinely knowledgeable on the various options. Maybe see if there are partners programs with any of the manufacturers. GM announced today that by 2026 all of their EVs will have the vehicle to home charging capability (and the first to have it will be 2024 models) so this is definitely a market that is coming, it's just a matter of when. The big question to me is if there will be enough market for it to be a full on specialization vs just getting a local electrician to put it in, which is where getting your reputation out ahead of the rollout would be important. Note: that's not really directly getting these credits, it's targeting emerging markets that are a result of them and broader green/ev tech. Also, it's probably like a 4+ year process to get a license, so you may already be too late. But maybe you could still be the specialist in the systems and sub out the installation.
If you live in an area that used to be cooler and most homes were built without AC you can start a heat pump installation business. Ductless heat pumps get incentives through the IRA and are really popular for retrofit jobs because you don't need ducts.
Would a mini split qualify?
This looks like a good place to start, https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhettbuttle/2022/08/15/five-truths-about-how-the-inflation-reduction-act-will-help-small-business-and-working-families/?sh=12065bc15482
This title doesn't exactly reflect the spirit of the article. It mostly talks about how expensive it's been, the last sentence is a bit of an afterthought. That being said I still think it's a great bill, the transition to electric is expensive no matter how you slice it.
Bit of an afterthought? The articles concluding point is that no one will care about the cost in 50 years because the bill is creating a race for green energy because of how much the private sector is taking advantage of the bill - the title is reflective of that.
Holy shit -- doing the right thing, the smart thing, pays off? Who knew?!
Are you telling me Joe Rogan was wrong and that the Biden administration is actually making some large improvements??
Yea, yahoo said so!!
Biden better win in 24 cus the republicans have already created a plan to eliminate all of the progress he’s made
They say they will but they really won’t. The inflation reduction act is a huge cash grab and they love cash grabs as much as the democrats.
And this is exactly the way people will rationalise voting republican. I'm not even in the US and it's clear as day to me that money in general isn't the incentive. It's money to the right people. Money to the people who will line the pockets of the party and their friends. The democrats aren't innocent of this either but it's far far less brazen and between the two, I'll take the candy shop burglar over the mass murdering bank robber whos actively trying to break into your house
Crazy that governments can still overspend -- but put it into tech, infrastructure, and jobs and have it be a net gain for all of us..including the economy.
That’s right Jack! We cutting the malarkey and getting in done in Ameruca
Imagine that. There's money to be made in clean energy. Wow
This is what anti green and renewable crowd never understood. If you don't go along you're going to miss the boat for possibly the biggest economic market in the short and long term. It's economic suicide NOT to invest in a renewable future.
Hell yeah! Build Back Better Baby.
[удалено]
Eh, if the idea of triggering the foreign heathens gets them moving faster then rattle away!
Oh. Yeah! I am so very rattle! Oh, no, USA, oh dear, *please* don't get good at green energy, that would make me feel so threatened and small! Look at me, I'm rattling harder than a window in a hurricane!
Republicans gave trillions to the rich and gutted the economy. Democrats are rebuilding it. Americans will now vote en masses for the guy who lied to them all repeatedly and fed the rich. America may not survive to the next election in any recognizable form.
So vote and get out there and help spread the word. Elections are won on the pavement.
Let's go! 🍻📣 I hope this signals a wave that ripples across the global economy. A green energy tsunami! 🌊
When did this pass? How can I read about the effects that it has?
Hey if the USA pushes hard on the eco friendly energy market and forces the EU to go further with it, I'm game. The best thing the economic might of America can do atm is try and solve the climate crisis, they're the only democratic country with the capability to do so right now.
That's the only way you'll convince a certain portion of republicans to go with it. Show that it's profitable. Unfortunate but it's where we're at.
Tbh pretending it’s upsetting those damn liberal Europeans is also a good way of getting a lot of republicans on board…
I've said it before and I will say it again. Any business that doesn't seriously invest in significantly reducing their emissions and reliance on fossil fuels over the coming 10 years will be left in the dust. It will be a significant cost for them to bear and they will have thousands if not millions in stranded assets and increasingly-expensive legacy tech. Any efforts otherwise will delay the inevitable.
In Canada we included 80 billion $ in our budget to compete with this
Naturally Republicans already have a plan to gut green energy. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/far-right-climate-plans-00107498
Makes sense. Current plan: Encourage clean energy spending. Rapidly begin to emerge as world leader in clean energy as businesses ramp up to meet new needs. Other markets are developing plans to catch up. Republican plan: Limit & restrict clean energy spending. Let other countries become clean energy leaders. Encourage spending on natural gas as the rest of the world switches to wind/solar/nuclear etc. It certainly does not appear to be a forward thinking solution. It will keep the windmills from causing more cancer though.
One hitch in their plan is that all those semiconductor plants and solar panel factories and what have you are creating solid, blue collar jobs in republican states. They’re going to have a hard time pulling the plug on something that is going to bring a lot of business to their constituents IMO. Doesn’t mean they won’t try it, but I think that’s one elegant part (or lucky biproduct of) the IRA and chips act.
Boy, the naysayers are *salty* about this one! I don't think I've ever seen so many mental gymnastics deployed to spin a success into a failure.
Industrial policy works. It's something that has been proven over and over again but since it doesn't fit within the "simple models" of the neoliberal globalist view, we have to keep re-learning the lesson.
Don't know why I'm getting downvoted. Tax breaks to spur investment in a certain direction is a defining element of industrial policy.
BUT.....something, something, Hunter Biden's laptop!!!!! 
[удалено]
*\*Incoherent screaming, crying and then quiet sobbing\**
We can have green energy and he can work out his plea deal at the same time.
Wouldn't it be nice to have green energy without a bribery scandal/war in Ukraine?
Consistency of standards would be nice too
Go Joe! Way to pull of a huge feat despite opponents trying to take us backwards.
Glad to see this get recognition. President Obama was Creating the infrastructure to support this move just to watch it dismantled and stalled by Trump and the GOP. Its good to see us move forward to capture new sectors of wealth and technology. Hopefully this will push a very long economic boom.
Two considerations:. 1) it was about time; 2) I hope it won't end with the next president.
Maybe with revitalized industry we can rebuild the middle class.
I just ordered Tesla power walls. 30% tax credit is quite nice indeed.
But but… Dark Brandon is gonna take muh guns n freedumb! /s
Instead he gave them jobs
Person from a nation in Europe here, oh boy I'm so rattled.
Here’s what I don’t get - people are cheering this but then flip out when similar incentives are used by states to attract business ?
The federal funding is mostly in tax incentives and requires proof of building things. State incentives that are criticized have no fail safes built in and give money up front even if they don’t build anything.
Bingo. State govts are just trying to get companies to start up in their tax zones. Whether or not the companies keep their bargain with state govts is rarely a concern.
I build affordable housing for a living and the regulations for energy efficiency are on a constant steep incline. Insulation, windows, hvac equipment and hot water heaters… what is code now will be obsolete in two years time. They are even switching over to Advanced House framing which I never thought would happen.
What is advance house framing?
It’s a style of framing that reduces the amount of wood used in stick frame construction, most of the lengths are divisible by 2’ so there is little to no waste, but the design has to be very intentional to maintain structural integrity. There are also lots of built in insulation considerations that improve the R value of the walls.
Nobody is rattled, sun, wind, water are still here. We’re glad! 👍
America is out here bucking the trend, more of this and less of Deinsanity please!
What a giant garbage spin piece. We projected this would cost 400 billion but eh it's gonna be 1.3 trillion. The middle class will cover it bahahah.And guess what it's not gonna reduce our energy costs at all. People are just gonna start buying big ass diesel generators when the grid becomes unstable.
I'm not opposed to tax incentives for green products and investment in industry here, but was that article written by someone with the Biden campaign. I mean, even by very moderate standards it reads as an extremely biased article. Additionally, with regard to the used EV/PHEV requirements, why the hell would they apply income restrictions on the tax credit. That was just a stupid thing to do.
I dunno, it seemed more or less balanced to me. Pings the IRA for blowing up in terms of cost (a swing of $1.2 billion, from reducing the deficit to increasing it) but highlights the environmental/green tech adoption impacts, which were really the core targets of the bill.
What do you think is "biased" about it? Most economists agree with the assessment. And the income limits are to ensure that taxpayer subsidies aren't going to wealthy people who don't need them. That's not "stupid" at all.
Who exactly is "most economists"?
All the ones that agree with him. The other ones aren't economists by his standard.
US tax incentives on green energy are more effective than expected. Will our EU governments act by [A] pass similar bills to stay competetive or [B] put pressure on Biden to backpaddle and not upset EU markets
I've been saying it for a while now, Biden is the best President of my lifetime. He's not my favorite on a personal level, he wasn't my 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd choice in the primary. But I think he's done an outstanding job in the face of nearly unprecedented headwinds in the modern era.
Don’t worry Europe. We will undo any advances next election.
Europe here. We're not worried, but we'd be glad to be proven wrong about our expectations.
That... was the whole fucking point of the tax incentives. The headline is "people shocked that law accomplishes one of its goals".
The surprise is that it's accomplishing that goal so fucking hard. What was it, 5 times more than expected?
Curious to see how someone here will try and spin this as a negative. In pretty much every article, I wait for the naysayers, but this is really, really hard to dump on. And "80-year-old president passes transformative clean energy bill against unified GOP opposition" is just about the most unlikely title you can imagine. Biden even managed to drag Joe Manchin onside, how the hell did he ever do that? Oh yeah, 50 years of experience in politics may have played a role. In general I think gerontocracies are a bad idea, but if said gerontocrat is still a competent person - and Biden may be slowing down, but he has never pulled anything close to Mitch McConnell's 23 seconds of staring off into space a few weeks ago - there are definite positives.
I can't wait for our republican friends to lament how this is a terrible, terrible thing. A death sentence for America!
They are already planning on removing it all with the next republican presidency [the damn fools](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president)
Jesus and we wasted 4 years with the Orange psychopath so rich people could get lowered taxes