New Climate Legislation: Solution for what?

[Ron Scott]

I find myself oddly in favor of this bill, in spite of my disbelief that it will have a meaningful global impact on warming and my concerns about more “tax breaks” pumping cash into an already crazy inflationary economy.

I think it does what it’s designed for: give us a little hope when we need it, add some patina to the American brand internationally, and cast a political party in a good light before the midterms.

I suppose I’ve grown cynical.

[lifeisshort123]

Allegedly there will be a 40% reduction in carbon from the bill alone.  That could be meaningful.

[Scramblin Rover]

Allegedly there will be a 40% reduction in carbon from the bill alone.  That could be meaningful.

It's true that people are modeling about a 40% reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, but that's not from this bill alone. The baseline projection is that the US carbon emissions would decline 25 to 34 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, without any future policy changes. So, the new bill would reduce US carbon emissions by about a further 10%.

Source: https://rhg.com/research/inflation-reduction-act/

[nereo]

Less than we need, but more than most thought we could get.

Early indications are this bill will at least keep us within range of our target to emit half the emissions of 2005 by 2030. Hopefully we get additional support from state governments and private industry to carry is the rest of the way.

[JupiterGreen]

Less than we need, but more than most thought we could get.

Early indications are this bill will at least keep us within range of our target to emit half the emissions of 2005 by 2030. Hopefully we get additional support from state governments and private industry to carry is the rest of the way.

I appreciate the bill and what the Democratic party is trying to do. I will continue to vote for them from my ruby red state, but I'd be much happier if "Dems" like Manchin weren't in the Senate. Coal will get whatever it wants, it's a dirty business. Also the offshore drilling part sucks. I hate that I live in such a right-wing/republican country that offshore drilling is a compromise.

But it looks like there is a lot in there for EV cars and some things for homeowners. It will be interesting to see what the bill looks like when/if it actually passes. Overall, it looks like good news for the planet.

[PDXTabs]

I find myself oddly in favor of this bill, in spite of my disbelief that it will have a meaningful global impact on warming and my concerns about more “tax breaks” pumping cash into an already crazy inflationary economy.

Even though it expands offshore drilling?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/28/democrats-climate-energy-legislation-00048393

[Villanelle]

Less than we need, but more than most thought we could get.

Early indications are this bill will at least keep us within range of our target to emit half the emissions of 2005 by 2030. Hopefully we get additional support from state governments and private industry to carry is the rest of the way.

I appreciate the bill and what the Democratic party is trying to do. I will continue to vote for them from my ruby red state, but I'd be much happier if "Dems" like Manchin weren't in the Senate. Coal will get whatever it wants, it's a dirty business. Also the offshore drilling part sucks. I hate that I live in such a right-wing/republican country that offshore drilling is a compromise.

But it looks like there is a lot in there for EV cars and some things for homeowners. It will be interesting to see what the bill looks like when/if it actually passes. Overall, it looks like good news for the planet.

Besides voting him out, the other Manchin solution is to just get more Dems in the Senate, so that his vote isn't needed.  If 55-60 (or more!) senators were Dems, then suddenly you don't have one or two with out-sized power and the ability to hold the entire party hostage to their demands.  Don't like it, Manchin?  Okay, either vote for it anyway, or maybe we will impose even more taxes on coal.  If we aren't going to have your vote regardless, then we don't need to look out for your interests and pet projects at all.

Wouldn't that be nice? 

[JupiterGreen]

Less than we need, but more than most thought we could get.

Early indications are this bill will at least keep us within range of our target to emit half the emissions of 2005 by 2030. Hopefully we get additional support from state governments and private industry to carry is the rest of the way.

I appreciate the bill and what the Democratic party is trying to do. I will continue to vote for them from my ruby red state, but I'd be much happier if "Dems" like Manchin weren't in the Senate. Coal will get whatever it wants, it's a dirty business. Also the offshore drilling part sucks. I hate that I live in such a right-wing/republican country that offshore drilling is a compromise.

But it looks like there is a lot in there for EV cars and some things for homeowners. It will be interesting to see what the bill looks like when/if it actually passes. Overall, it looks like good news for the planet.

Besides voting him out, the other Manchin solution is to just get more Dems in the Senate, so that his vote isn't needed.  If 55-60 (or more!) senators were Dems, then suddenly you don't have one or two with out-sized power and the ability to hold the entire party hostage to their demands.  Don't like it, Manchin?  Okay, either vote for it anyway, or maybe we will impose even more taxes on coal.  If we aren't going to have your vote regardless, then we don't need to look out for your interests and pet projects at all.

Wouldn't that be nice?

I would give a kidney for that, maybe even a finger or two (on my non-dominant hand). Yes, that would be so nice to have actual  representation!

[mistymoney]

Less than we need, but more than most thought we could get.

Early indications are this bill will at least keep us within range of our target to emit half the emissions of 2005 by 2030. Hopefully we get additional support from state governments and private industry to carry is the rest of the way.

I appreciate the bill and what the Democratic party is trying to do. I will continue to vote for them from my ruby red state, but I'd be much happier if "Dems" like Manchin weren't in the Senate. Coal will get whatever it wants, it's a dirty business. Also the offshore drilling part sucks. I hate that I live in such a right-wing/republican country that offshore drilling is a compromise.

But it looks like there is a lot in there for EV cars and some things for homeowners. It will be interesting to see what the bill looks like when/if it actually passes. Overall, it looks like good news for the planet.

what is in their for EV cars and homeowners? Anyone have the deets in memory or a short article that would bulletpoint this?

[Plina]

I think it does what it’s designed for: give us a little hope when we need it, add some patina to the American brand internationally, and cast a political party in a good light before the midterms.

I suppose I’ve grown cynical.

If the though is to add patina it would work a lot better without offshore drilling. Now it seems as another promise without substance.

[bmjohnson35]

"what is in their for EV cars and homeowners? Anyone have the deets in memory or a short article that would bulletpoint this?"


Maybe here:  https://electrek.co/2022/07/29/which-electric-vehicles-still-qualify-for-us-federal-tax-credit/

[bmjohnson35]

I find myself oddly in favor of this bill, in spite of my disbelief that it will have a meaningful global impact on warming and my concerns about more “tax breaks” pumping cash into an already crazy inflationary economy.

I think it does what it’s designed for: give us a little hope when we need it, add some patina to the American brand internationally, and cast a political party in a good light before the midterms.

I suppose I’ve grown cynical.

I'm trying to be less cynical these days, but your summary mirrors my thoughts on the subject.

[mistymoney]

"what is in their for EV cars and homeowners? Anyone have the deets in memory or a short article that would bulletpoint this?"


Maybe here:  https://electrek.co/2022/07/29/which-electric-vehicles-still-qualify-for-us-federal-tax-credit/

Thanks!!

[Arbitrage]

I'm frustrated that there's essentially nothing for bikes, walking, micromobility, public transit, all of which I consider to be far better solutions for transportation, housing, land use, traffic, city livability, climate, etc. than more cars, cities designed solely around the car, and ever more car infrastructure.   

Guess that's the reality of North America, though.  Will have to keep fighting the fight at the local level first.

[nereo]

I'm frustrated that there's essentially nothing for bikes, walking, micromobility, public transit, all of which I consider to be far better solutions for transportation, housing, land use, traffic, city livability, climate, etc. than more cars, cities designed solely around the car, and ever more car infrastructure.   

I'm not sure how you define "essentially nothing', but there is considerable money for many of the projects you list in various forms of the bill, including $27B for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which spends a lot on public transit, urban pollution reduction, wetland restoration, active transportation and underserved communities.
It's not what gains the biggest headlines but it's in the bill.

[Arbitrage]

I'm frustrated that there's essentially nothing for bikes, walking, micromobility, public transit, all of which I consider to be far better solutions for transportation, housing, land use, traffic, city livability, climate, etc. than more cars, cities designed solely around the car, and ever more car infrastructure.   

I'm not sure how you define "essentially nothing', but there is considerable money for many of the projects you list in various forms of the bill, including $27B for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which spends a lot on public transit, urban pollution reduction, wetland restoration, active transportation and underserved communities.
It's not what gains the biggest headlines but it's in the bill.

I will admit that I have not read the text of the bill, but have been relying upon other sources that have analyzed the bill, and the bill summary.  The bill does not once mention bicycles/cycling, and trains are only mentioned to cite them as ineligible for funding.  Every reading I've seen of the investments in the fund, supposedly touting the benefits, does not say anything about investments of the nature I mentioned.  As far as the GGRF/clean technology accelerator you mention, but I don't see anything saying any appreciable percentage of that would be spent on public transit or micromobility accommodations.  Here's the claim:

"The new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund would be funded at $27 billion over the next decade to better leverage private sector investment and community lenders to build wind, solar, electric vehicle, and energy efficiency projects at the community level"

Nothing in any of these line items, except maybe part of the $3B for neighborhood equity and safety:
https://twitter.com/alextdaugherty/status/1552456160585945088

I stand by my "essentially nothing" statement.  Others may have a different opinion of an appropriate level of spending on these items, but for a beneficial transformation of our basic car-exclusive infrastructure a lot of investment would be needed, and this doesn't even make a step in that direction.  I recognize that's by design - most Americans don't want that, and would prefer endless highways, traffic, and exurbia. 

[Arbitrage]

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy they're (pending Sinema) potentially doing *something*, but I do think it's a big opportunity lost to move the country, our cities, and our infrastructure in a better direction. 

[Just Joe]

I'm frustrated that there's essentially nothing for bikes, walking, micromobility, public transit, all of which I consider to be far better solutions for transportation, housing, land use, traffic, city livability, climate, etc. than more cars, cities designed solely around the car, and ever more car infrastructure.   

Guess that's the reality of North America, though.  Will have to keep fighting the fight at the local level first.

Agreed! The feds would probably say that these topics are best handled at the state level but if a person lives in a red state, they aren't going to be addressed very well any time soon.

My county would benefit from a spoke and hub network of dedicated bike paths if they were graded properly to help riders on hills. Ebike riders would have no problem.

[lifeisshort123]

The problem is America was designed too late.  In some places there are things they can do to meaningfully help.

Many communities are too spread out on a practical level.  And several cities now, or places that a walkable/bikeable lifestyle could exist are simply beyond the practical means of many people living there, certainly those who are trying to save substantial sums of money.  There are some exceptions to that, but it is true.

I am worried about the future of climate.  We need to get our emissions down.  It would have been great to make the US take many strong strides towards using less water, less energy, etc. There are ways to do so, and they are expensive.

[PDXTabs]

I'm frustrated that there's essentially nothing for bikes, walking, micromobility, public transit, all of which I consider to be far better solutions for transportation, housing, land use, traffic, city livability, climate, etc. than more cars, cities designed solely around the car, and ever more car infrastructure.   

I'm not sure how you define "essentially nothing', but there is considerable money for many of the projects you list in various forms of the bill, including $27B for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which spends a lot on public transit, urban pollution reduction, wetland restoration, active transportation and underserved communities.
It's not what gains the biggest headlines but it's in the bill.

Because $27B over ten years is approximately nothing in terms of US transit funding, and part of that $27B isn't even going to transit. By comparison the US  spent ~$203B in 2019 for road and highway funding.

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures

[PDXTabs]

The problem is America was designed too late.  In some places there are things they can do to meaningfully help.

Many communities are too spread out on a practical level.  And several cities now, or places that a walkable/bikeable lifestyle could exist are simply beyond the practical means of many people living there, certainly those who are trying to save substantial sums of money.  There are some exceptions to that, but it is true.

You are ignoring the part where be bulldozed a bunch of density after WW2, tore up the largest electric streetcar network on the planet, and then made it illegal rebuild the density. The USA wasn't "designed too late." It was re-designed poorly with Euclidean zoning and massive subsidies for GM.

EDITed to add - and almost everyone across the political spectrum is the problem and standing in the way of progress. For every YIMBY you can find 100 NIMBYs. Even with an army of lawyers and PR consultants I probably couldn't build a 5-over-1 in my neighborhood. If I did by some miracle succeed the cost of the lawyers and PR firms would only drive up the price for no benefit.

[Plina]

The problem is America was designed too late.  In some places there are things they can do to meaningfully help.

Many communities are too spread out on a practical level.  And several cities now, or places that a walkable/bikeable lifestyle could exist are simply beyond the practical means of many people living there, certainly those who are trying to save substantial sums of money.  There are some exceptions to that, but it is true.

You are ignoring the part where be bulldozed a bunch of density after WW2, tore up the largest electric streetcar network on the planet, and then made it illegal rebuild the density. The USA wasn't "designed too late." It was re-designed poorly with Euclidean zoning and massive subsidies for GM.

EDITed to add - and almost everyone across the political spectrum is the problem and standing in the way of progress. For every YIMBY you can find 100 NIMBYs. Even with an army of lawyers and PR consultants I probably couldn't build a 5-over-1 in my neighborhood. If I did by some miracle succeed the cost of the lawyers and PR firms would only drive up the price for no benefit.

I have been listening to an interesting book called Building the cykling city by Melissa Bruntlet that are telling about building of biking infrastructure in the Netherlands as well as other places. The interesting fact was that some american and german inspired car centric infrastructure planners tried and in some case managed to rebuild carcentric infrastructure after WW2 but it was later returned to a bikefriendly or bikefriendlier infrastructure. So it is possible to transform carcentric cities as well. You got to stop using the current dysfunctional city as an excuse to not make changes.

[PDXTabs]

The problem is America was designed too late.  In some places there are things they can do to meaningfully help.

Many communities are too spread out on a practical level.  And several cities now, or places that a walkable/bikeable lifestyle could exist are simply beyond the practical means of many people living there, certainly those who are trying to save substantial sums of money.  There are some exceptions to that, but it is true.

You are ignoring the part where be bulldozed a bunch of density after WW2, tore up the largest electric streetcar network on the planet, and then made it illegal rebuild the density. The USA wasn't "designed too late." It was re-designed poorly with Euclidean zoning and massive subsidies for GM.

EDITed to add - and almost everyone across the political spectrum is the problem and standing in the way of progress. For every YIMBY you can find 100 NIMBYs. Even with an army of lawyers and PR consultants I probably couldn't build a 5-over-1 in my neighborhood. If I did by some miracle succeed the cost of the lawyers and PR firms would only drive up the price for no benefit.

I have been listening to an interesting book called Building the cykling city by Melissa Bruntlet that are telling about building of biking infrastructure in the Netherlands as well as other places. The interesting fact was that some american and german inspired car centric infrastructure planners tried and in some case managed to rebuild carcentric infrastructure after WW2 but it was later returned to a bikefriendly or bikefriendlier infrastructure. So it is possible to transform carcentric cities as well. You got to stop using the current dysfunctional city as an excuse to not make changes.

Yup. I've listened to her interview on The War on Cars and I own her book Curbing Traffic but I haven't read it yet as I'm still working through (the very dense) Fighting Traffic by Peter D. Norton.

[bmjohnson35]

I recently watched the documentary referenced in the article linked below and I found it intriguing.  It essentially claims that the single most effective way to combat climate change is to protect and replenish our topsoil across the world.  We need to change our farming habits from tilling and single grown crops over to regenerative style farming. The secret being the incredible amount of carbon that can be absorbed by top soil and vegetation.  We recently returned from a 60 day road trip across America, hitting 20 states and covering 12,000 miles.  It's amazing how much open land we have in this nation and how much of it is tilled and left bare between crops. As with most environmental initiatives, there are a lot of hurdles to overcome.

Of course, I don't see any mention of funds allocated toward this program in the Climate Legislation.   

https://civileats.com/2020/09/22/new-soil-documentary-promises-a-powerful-solution-to-the-growing-effects-of-climate-change/

[lifeisshort123]

Bill Passed 51-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris supplying the tie-breaking vote.

Now it will go to the house.  It will need to be passed there.  One of the changes affected SALT, which is a big issue for New York and California democrats.  This isn’t over until Biden signs the bill.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/08/07/senate-inflation-reduction-act-climate/

[TomTX]

I'm frustrated that there's essentially nothing for bikes, walking, micromobility, public transit, all of which I consider to be far better solutions for transportation, housing, land use, traffic, city livability, climate, etc. than more cars, cities designed solely around the car, and ever more car infrastructure.   

Guess that's the reality of North America, though.  Will have to keep fighting the fight at the local level first.

The IIJA bumped up opportunities for active transportation to get funded, and made it so that local governments can apply directly for many categories of funding (instead of having to funnel through the state DOT).

Fighting for active transportation at the local level is working out really well here. Ping me if you would like to know more.

[mathlete]

Less than we need, but more than most thought we could get.

Pretty good summation. I’m happy. Especially considering that I thought the current administration was likely done passing meaningful legislation.

[mathlete]

The problem is America was designed too late.  In some places there are things they can do to meaningfully help.

Many communities are too spread out on a practical level.  And several cities now, or places that a walkable/bikeable lifestyle could exist are simply beyond the practical means of many people living there, certainly those who are trying to save substantial sums of money.  There are some exceptions to that, but it is true.

EDITed to add - and almost everyone across the political spectrum is the problem and standing in the way of progress. For every YIMBY you can find 100 NIMBYs. Even with an army of lawyers and PR consultants I probably couldn't build a 5-over-1 in my neighborhood. If I did by some miracle succeed the cost of the lawyers and PR firms would only drive up the price for no benefit.

Agreed. Especially the “almost everyone is the problem” part. More than 60% of Americans own homes and almost none of them want new neighbors. Even renters don’t want new neighbors. We all fight density in one way or another.

I don’t blame people too much though. The benefits of sprawl are immediate and the consequences are decades in the making. I went into 2020 thinking my 2000sqft home was much too big, but one baby and wfh later I’m glad I’ve got it. And people like to drive. The ability to get from point A to point B in your own comfort bubble is nice.

The most effective way to go green is to make it cheap and easy. Subsidies will help with that. I’d like to see some more forward thinking YIMBY city planning too, but that’s gonna be slow progress over my lifetime.

[PDXTabs]

The problem is America was designed too late.  In some places there are things they can do to meaningfully help.

Many communities are too spread out on a practical level.  And several cities now, or places that a walkable/bikeable lifestyle could exist are simply beyond the practical means of many people living there, certainly those who are trying to save substantial sums of money.  There are some exceptions to that, but it is true.

EDITed to add - and almost everyone across the political spectrum is the problem and standing in the way of progress. For every YIMBY you can find 100 NIMBYs. Even with an army of lawyers and PR consultants I probably couldn't build a 5-over-1 in my neighborhood. If I did by some miracle succeed the cost of the lawyers and PR firms would only drive up the price for no benefit.

Agreed. Especially the “almost everyone is the problem” part. More than 60% of Americans own homes and almost none of them want new neighbors. Even renters don’t want new neighbors. We all fight density in one way or another.

I don’t blame people too much though. The benefits of sprawl are immediate and the consequences are decades in the making. I went into 2020 thinking my 2000sqft home was much too big, but one baby and wfh later I’m glad I’ve got it. And people like to drive. The ability to get from point A to point B in your own comfort bubble is nice.

I will happily blame them while admitting that the 65% of the US population that are homeowners are voting in their own best interests. By restricting access to housing through city councils and zoning boards they are artificially increasing the value of their (most likely) largest asset.

The most effective way to go green is to make it cheap and easy. Subsidies will help with that. I’d like to see some more forward thinking YIMBY city planning too, but that’s gonna be slow progress over my lifetime.

You lost me here. Ignoring the political impossibility of ever changing anything in the USA, why would we subsidize the thing that we wanted? Wouldn't it be better to tax the thing that you don't want? Although I will admit that fast-tracking high density mixed use building permits is a good idea.

[FireBound]

Is there anything in the bill to mandate work from home, or more remote work?  I doubt it but will be pleasantly surprised if there are.

It seems no one tackles the lose-lose-lose mentality of commuting to work unnecessarily on daily basis if the work can be done remotely.  Employees lose out on time and cost of commuting, planet loses out with the wasted fuel being burned and carbon being generated to pointlessly forcing people to drive back and forth to a cubicle, and employers lose out by paying expensive office space and less productivity from employees who have to factor in 1-3 hours of travel per day that could be otherwise gained back in productivity or happier employees.

[seattlecyclone]

The most effective way to go green is to make it cheap and easy. Subsidies will help with that. I’d like to see some more forward thinking YIMBY city planning too, but that’s gonna be slow progress over my lifetime.

You lost me here. Ignoring the political impossibility of ever changing anything in the USA, why would we subsidize the thing that we wanted? Wouldn't it be better to tax the thing that you don't want? Although I will admit that fast-tracking high density mixed use building permits is a good idea.

Whether you tax the thing you don't want, or subsidize the thing you do want, the effect on the incentives is the same. Depending on the political climate, one or the other approach may be more feasible to pass.

[PDXTabs]

The most effective way to go green is to make it cheap and easy. Subsidies will help with that. I’d like to see some more forward thinking YIMBY city planning too, but that’s gonna be slow progress over my lifetime.

You lost me here. Ignoring the political impossibility of ever changing anything in the USA, why would we subsidize the thing that we wanted? Wouldn't it be better to tax the thing that you don't want? Although I will admit that fast-tracking high density mixed use building permits is a good idea.

Whether you tax the thing you don't want, or subsidize the thing you do want, the effect on the incentives is the same. Depending on the political climate, one or the other approach may be more feasible to pass.

While perhaps mathematically true, one of them increases revenue and one of them decreases revenue. I also have noticed this thing where people don't like paying taxes. They seem willing to go to great lengths to avoid paying them. I'm not sure there isn't more deterrent power in a tax than there is incentive power in a subsidy.

[jpdx]

I'm looking forward to seeing a detailed breakdown of all the various tax credits -- which ones are refundable/nonrefundable, income phaseouts, etc. I know the bill hasn't passed the House yet, but once this is available it would be great if someone could share it on the forum.

[nereo]

I'm looking forward to seeing a detailed breakdown of all the various tax credits -- which ones are refundable/nonrefundable, income phaseouts, etc. I know the bill hasn't passed the House yet, but once this is available it would be great if someone could share it on the forum.

I look forward to reading a more detailed analysis. It seems a lot of the discussion is on the premature side, as it is still being modified and many of the provisions (it will give $X billion towards Y) will not be the ultimate fate of those funds.

[PDXTabs]

I'm looking forward to seeing a detailed breakdown of all the various tax credits -- which ones are refundable/nonrefundable, income phaseouts, etc. I know the bill hasn't passed the House yet, but once this is available it would be great if someone could share it on the forum.

Me too. On July 28th Politico reported "$3 billion in grants for creating more access to transportation" while noting "it would reinstate an offshore oil and gas lease sale conducted in the Gulf of Mexico last year that had its result vacated by a federal judge due to insufficient environmental review. The lease sale of 80 million acres had represented the largest such auction in U.S. history, drawing attacks from environmental groups who said it violated Biden’s climate promises."

I'm also waiting for some sort of independent analysis to prove or disprove the claim that the largest ever issuance of drilling permits is somehow good for climate change or if Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, was correct when he called the bill a "climate suicide pact."

[mathlete]

You lost me here. Ignoring the political impossibility of ever changing anything in the USA, why would we subsidize the thing that we wanted? Wouldn't it be better to tax the thing that you don't want? Although I will admit that fast-tracking high density mixed use building permits is a good idea.

Carrot or the stick. Americans HATE HATE HATE to be told they can't do something. I have nothing against pickup trucks, but buying a pickup as a commuter is an objectively stupid thing to do. But Americans like to do it for some reason. Even though many of them will never tow or haul anything. Even though choosing a new pickup over a new sedan screws you out of (by my estimate) a quarter million by typical retirement age.

The good news is that Americans also like Teslas and solar panels and new windows that lower their AC bill. Better to try to carrot them into one of those choices IMO.

[lifeisshort123]

This bill is all about carrots instead of sticks.  Hopefully they are successful.  The stick approach was never going to fly. Clinton tried, Obama tried, Bush (under his then EPA secretary, Whitman) considered it, and then decided not to move ahead with even trying.

[mathlete]

I would love to be a nation of dense cities with universal public transit, connected by high speed rail. Failing that though, we've got the interstate highway system already. We've committed $7.5b to create a network of EV chargers throughout the country. I've seen predictions that 25-30% of the new car market will be EVs by 2030. Hopefully we shoot past that with these subsidies.

[PDXTabs]

You lost me here. Ignoring the political impossibility of ever changing anything in the USA, why would we subsidize the thing that we wanted? Wouldn't it be better to tax the thing that you don't want? Although I will admit that fast-tracking high density mixed use building permits is a good idea.

Carrot or the stick. Americans HATE HATE HATE to be told they can't do something. I have nothing against pickup trucks, but buying a pickup as a commuter is an objectively stupid thing to do. But Americans like to do it for some reason. Even though many of them will never tow or haul anything. Even though choosing a new pickup over a new sedan screws you out of (by my estimate) a quarter million by typical retirement age.

The good news is that Americans also like Teslas and solar panels and new windows that lower their AC bill. Better to try to carrot them into one of those choices IMO.

Maybe, I HATE HATE HATE voting for government officials that think it is okay to debt finance new cars for the upper middle class.

[nereo]

You lost me here. Ignoring the political impossibility of ever changing anything in the USA, why would we subsidize the thing that we wanted? Wouldn't it be better to tax the thing that you don't want? Although I will admit that fast-tracking high density mixed use building permits is a good idea.

Carrot or the stick. Americans HATE HATE HATE to be told they can't do something. I have nothing against pickup trucks, but buying a pickup as a commuter is an objectively stupid thing to do. But Americans like to do it for some reason. Even though many of them will never tow or haul anything. Even though choosing a new pickup over a new sedan screws you out of (by my estimate) a quarter million by typical retirement age.

The good news is that Americans also like Teslas and solar panels and new windows that lower their AC bill. Better to try to carrot them into one of those choices IMO.

This bill is all about carrots instead of sticks.  Hopefully they are successful.  The stick approach was never going to fly. Clinton tried, Obama tried, Bush (under his then EPA secretary, Whitman) considered it, and then decided not to move ahead with even trying.

Sticks can work.  Carrots can work.  Both have a long history of being successful in the US.  Both have a history of utterly failing when implemented poorly (e.g. when they were inappropriately sized, or when they easily circumvented, or legally annulled). 

[secondcor521]

The actual text of the bill that passed the Senate can be found here:

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-168/issue-130/senate-section/article/S3922-5

[nereo]

The actual text of the bill that passed the Senate can be found here:

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-168/issue-130/senate-section/article/S3922-5

Thanks.  I wonder what might get tacked on in the House before it finally gets voted on.

[secondcor521]

The actual text of the bill that passed the Senate can be found here:

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-168/issue-130/senate-section/article/S3922-5

Thanks.  I wonder what might get tacked on in the House before it finally gets voted on.

Probably nothing.  Any changes to the bill in order to pass the House would need to be voted on again by the Senate, and the bill as written is a carefully crafted compromise to get all 50 Democratic Senators to vote for it.  Changes risk losing a Senator and the bill not passing at all.  It does seem that this bill is partly aimed (as all bills are) at the fall elections.

There is a bit of chatter that some Democratic Representatives might not vote for it, but there is more margin in the House, so I think it will pass the House as is.  Although it's not quite a done deal in my mind.

[bryan995]

Bill Passed 51-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris supplying the tie-breaking vote.

Now it will go to the house.  It will need to be passed there.  One of the changes affected SALT, which is a big issue for New York and California democrats.  This isn’t over until Biden signs the bill.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/08/07/senate-inflation-reduction-act-climate/

The SALT change was dropped at the last minute, no?
I would LOVE increasing the SALT limit to 80k from 10k. 

[jpdx]

This link from CNBC outlines the various climate tax credits and rebates for consumers. It's the most detailed list I have found so far, as it shows income phaseouts, refundability, and so on.

[eyesonthehorizon]

Is there anything in the bill to mandate work from home, or more remote work?  I doubt it but will be pleasantly surprised if there are.

It seems no one tackles the lose-lose-lose mentality of commuting to work unnecessarily on daily basis if the work can be done remotely.  Employees lose out on time and cost of commuting, planet loses out with the wasted fuel being burned and carbon being generated to pointlessly forcing people to drive back and forth to a cubicle, and employers lose out by paying expensive office space and less productivity from employees who have to factor in 1-3 hours of travel per day that could be otherwise gained back in productivity or happier employees.

Nothing I've seen in the US, yet. The Netherlands has just approved remote work as a legal right where job duties don't directly conflict, which I think is the best approach. Mandating work from home arguably disadvantages the poorest during the transition, who may not have necessary space or facilities (like a printer, or enough quiet in multi-adult households), more than forcing employers to allow it does.

But I strongly agree with the arguments for remote work, & I'd love to see that come to the United States. The reduction in traffic we all had during first-wave covid, even where there were no formal shutdowns, is probably the biggest selling point; Americans want to be sold convenience but freak out if they're told what to do. Working from home is the ultimate convenience for many, & not needing to maintain a car to keep a job makes the relatively lower cost of maintaining a computer outright cheap by comparison. What we're up against is powerful executives, who almost uniformly believe working from home gives labor too much freedom (even as they typically worked remotely themselves more than anyone before the pandemic), & commercial real estate lobbies trying to prop up the value of their pointless office buildings that only employers were ever enthusiastic about. I don't think the car companies are worried yet but I'd bet they join the detractors if people start selling their second, third, etc. household cars & not replacing them.

[JupiterGreen]

This link from CNBC outlines the various climate tax credits and rebates for consumers. It's the most detailed list I have found so far, as it shows income phaseouts, refundability, and so on.

Thank you, this is great!

[mathlete]

https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-what-to-make-of-the?s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedSigningIn=true#comments

Good podcast breaking down the bill. Some bad, but mostly good.

[jpdx]

I'm noticing at the bottom of the CNBC link: "Up to $14,000 in rebates for efficient appliances." Is the government really going to buy me an induction stove?

[4tify]

I still don't understand how the money is being spent. Apparently I'm not alone:

https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2022/08/climate-policy-numbers.html