Funds will be targeted at disadvantaged areas to create 200,000 jobs, after last week’s oil and gas lease restrictions in Alaska

Joe Biden will mark Monday’s Earth Day by announcing a $7bn investment in solar energy projects nationwide, focusing on disadvantaged communities, and unveiling a week-long series of what the White House say will be “historic climate actions”.

The president is traveling to Virginia’s Prince William Forest Park to deliver a speech touting his environmental record, including measures to tackle the climate crisis and increase access to, and lower costs of, clean energy.

Today’s centerpiece is the announcement of $7bn in grants through the Environmental Protection Agency’s “solar for all” program, funded by last year’s $369bn bipartisan Inflation Reduction Act, which the Biden administration says benefits more than 900,000 households.

The money will be targeted at low-income and disadvantaged areas, government officials say, and distributed through “states, territories, tribes, municipalities and non-profits across the country”.

  • Goku
    link
    162 months ago

    Well with China facing sanctions for their oppression of Taiwan, could this be seen as a strategic divestment away from China?

    Just asking, hopefully not offending anyone.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      My read is that it’s less about divestment or sanctions, and more about preserving industry capacity.

      The U.S. used to have a lot of textile factories until free trade moved those jobs to other countries. And the automotive industry used to be much more U.S.-based. (It’s a bit different, because while plants did close, the major job losses and industry shifts were in sub-assemblies that get shipped to plants.)

      What happens is that China is heavily subsidizing its ______ industry (solar panels, in this case). That’s why they’re so much cheaper. In addition to heavy subsidies, the Chinese yen is artificially weakened against other currencies, meaning that those currencies can buy Chinese goods more cheaply than they can goods produced domestically.

      The end result is that in free trade situations, and most lightly restricted trade situations, that the Chinese goods outcompete domestic goods. This creates trade imbalances, causes domestic economic issues, and perhaps most insidiously, destroys the domestic industry. Factories owned by ‘people’ tend to go under, or wind up sold off to multi-national corporations. Either way, factories are run with leaner margins until cuts to maintenance ensure that they must close because repairing, rebuilding, or replacing is economically infeasible. Equipment is sold off, scrapped, or just goes dormant. Poorly maintained, dormant equipment that is not stored properly will likely never be able to be used again.
      Buildings either continue to degrade with no maintenance or no tenants, or they get sold and repurposed.

      And at that point, China moves its subsidies to other industries. Countries must buy their goods because they no longer have enough domestic producers of the goods, or the surviving domestic producers have moved into premium products, so China has cornered the market on affordable products.
      It costs huge amounts of capital to spin up a factory, and factories in developed countries really only really exist because they already exist. The cost of property and tooling is often way, way too much to start a new manufacturing business, let alone the cost of skilled labor. Once a domestic industry has died or failed to launch when new products are expected to carry a premium, there are exceptionally few ways to revive that industry, aside from throwing huge amounts of money at it.

      So… In this case, it’s to prevent China from smothering the U.S. nascent domestic solar panel industry. I doubt it’ll really succeed. We’ll probably wind up with a political shift and whoever is blowing in the breeze will quietly open up free trade on solar panels, or somebody will sue about the tariffs, and the courts will do something silly like declare the federal government isn’t actually a government, but is actually a hamster.

    • @givesomefucks
      link
      English
      -24
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I mean. If they were being sanctioned for something like their genocide of Muslims on all exports, yeah, I’d be all about it.

      But if a country genocides Muslims, Biden tends to give them billions of dollars, not sanctions. You only get sanctions for genociding Christians, and thats only if the rest of the UN does it.

      Besides the very very simple difference that if these were sanctions, they wouldn’t be called tariffs, they’d be called sanctions.

      You could try to read the article i linked if you want more info, or even try searching for another article.

      Making random guess of how it could be a positive and throwing them out there hoping something sticks is what trumpets do…

      Although these days it’s legitimately hard to tell them apart from the few people actually excited about Biden.

      Hell. A few years ago no Dem would unironically say they were “just asking questions”. That’s been the conservative move since Faux News came about.

      But I guess if someone kept watching CNN after the Faux News guy bought it, that does explain the change. He said he wanted to turn CNN into Faux News, and it looks like it’s working on people

      • partial_accumen
        link
        252 months ago

        But if a country genocides Muslims, Biden tends to give them billions of dollars, not sanctions. You only get sanctions for genociding Christians, and thats only if the rest of the UN does it.

        Fact check: failed

        “Treasury Sanctions Chinese Government Officials in Connection with Serious Human Rights Abuse in Xinjiang”

        source

      • @Serinus
        link
        02 months ago

        While you have a point, assume the guy was asking in good faith and then see how your response reads.

        • Buelldozer
          link
          fedilink
          7
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That account isn’t asking in good faith.

          Edit: Comment…adjusted…to comply with rules.

        • partial_accumen
          link
          62 months ago

          There as no editorializing on my part in my response. I didn’t assign any motives or blame to their incorrect statement. I only posted that it was untrue (intentionally or not) and cited the source.

          • @Serinus
            link
            32 months ago

            I’m sorry, I thought I was replying to @[email protected].

            He’s right in that we shouldn’t just search for justifications, Trumpist style.