Anyway, the US could about half its greenhouse gas output in maybe 10 years by mandating 100% renewable or nuclear power generation and banning commercial fossil fuel trucks.
Finance it with subsidies by cutting the military budget in half (which also would drastically reduce emissions).
In comparison, banning fossil fuels for private vehicles would reduce emissions by maybe ~15%.
Requiring trucking to be 100% electric would:
- cut greenhouse gas emissions
- notably also cut other pollution
- cause a build-out of national infrastructure for charging EVs, including helping to revitalize many rural towns that are now being bypassed as trucks will need to make more stops
- huge boom to American EV manufacturing, making consumer EV's cheaper
- incentivize research into better battery technology
Forcing power generation to be 100% off fossil fuels has pretty self-evident advantages:
- cut greenhouse gas emissions severely
- large power projects create tons of jobs with secondary and tertiary effects for local economies
I need to emphasize that the money to do all this is already here, we just spend it on hugely overpriced fighter jets, submarines and bombs, mainly to make some billionaires richer.
If you're a hardcore capitalist: climate change is an amazing, HUGE opportunity for large industrial nations to set themselves up to be leaders for this century and beyond, including controlling markets and generating tons of wealth--it's astounding that no one runs with this.
@thomasfuchs Indeed. I asked the same question decades ago when the electric / high-speed rail market was shaking out in the world.
Electric high speed rail is found all over the world and is spreading, except in the U.S.A. It's a technology that requires a lot of specialized knowledge and expertise. It's big business and involves a lot of money. The market has shaken out to seven makers, none of them in the Americas.
The U.S.A. missed the opportunity to become a major player in this market.
