I'm all for using gov't policy to drive positive change but it seems like this rarely works out... in the case of Tesla I think the subsidies were not the right thing to do because the cars aren't much better vs a smaller, fuel-efficient gas car, and could be worse depending on how they are recharged.
Actually, a Tesla model S gets 4-5 times the equivalent mileage of a similar sized gas guzzler with lower acceleration than the Tesla of course. I don't have any data on the Model 3 yet, but it is probably similar.
And luckily for the US, our president's beliefs and behavior aren't law and many local gov'ts are committed to adhering to the Paris agreements. If all 50 states recognize it and the Fed gov't doesn't.. well it doesn't really matter anymore what he thinks or does.
It still matters unfortunately.
So far the US as well as the entire world hasn't been moving fast enough on both climate change/energy issues
Do you know what is happening in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Holland? Norway has already 30% electric cars on the roads. Some of these countries are 80% renewable powered already. Many countries outlawing the sale os gas vehicles from 2030-2050.
as well as agriculture. Both are inter-related and inseparable, and ag issues are just as bad for us and the planet. In ag, we're moving in exactly the WRONG direction with gmo/roundup-ready crops, the use of powerful and persistent pesticides that kill all sorts of things we probably don't want to kill, like honeybees, but they are just the most noticeable insect out of hundreds or thousands of species we're killing. It's the combination of poor ag and poor energy practices that are going to cause problems.
IT turns out that the consumer is forcing a lot of changes in the US. Some of the largest chicken farms have already eliminated antibiotics. There are more and more organic foods available, and more local crops in the stores. Free-range chicken eggs and free-range chicken is easier to find and affordable.
The climate and ag issues are also going to hit feedback loops that are going to accelerate the rate of change of undesirable effects and it's all going to be much worse than we think right now. I've always thought, and still do, that the solution is going to have to be technology based, i.e. we are going to have to figure out how to manipulate the planet's climate and go back to organic, local agriculture. In many ways it IS too late to correct the damage we've done just by reducing the production of greenhouse gasses and adapting renewable energy tech. We're going to have to come up with tech to correct for these problems directly as well as adapting more sustainable methods of producing energy and food.
I don't believe that man can fix mother nature. We cannot even do hatchery fish without screwing up the natural stocks. Many must make drastic changes before it is too late. I don't believe we are at the inflexion point of mans demise yet, but things will get a LOT worse before they get better.
An international Climate Change workgroup did a study last year to determine what actions would slow things so that they do not get a lot worse. The result was that the entire planet would need to cut in half their CO2 emissions every decade for 10 decades.
How likely is that?
Steve N.