While the Republican majority in the House means that this kind of thing won’t pass this session, it gives a sense of what Democrats might try to pass if they win enough seats.
While the Republican majority in the House means that this kind of thing won’t pass this session, it gives a sense of what Democrats might try to pass if they win enough seats.
This would primarily impact low income families who can’t afford electric vehicles and who are dependent on fossil fuel sources for cooking and heating. It’s worth discussing these options, and at some point the issue will have to be forced, but the impact needs to be mitigated with forethought.
This isn’t necessarily true. Wind and solar power have become the most cost-effective power generating options, to the point where almost all new grid power generation is one or the other (see the Lazard report on Levelized Cost of Energy). Building anything else in the current market looks like a financial mistake. I’m pretty sure this is why the recent attempts to build new nuclear power never get beyond the initial planning - the falling cost of wind and solar keeps undercutting their projected $/MWh. This happened because of government subsidies driving the development of wind and solar until they became viable, and it didn’t require a direct negative impact on anybody.
The real takeaway here is that government subsidies are very effective for turning prototype technologies into effective solutions.