I bought a house this year, and later this year I'm going to use the IRA to move from natural gas to a heat pump. I'll also be adding solar, but I don't think I can do that until next year. I already have an electric car, so I'm good for a while. My only worry is how to get the rebate for the heat pump. Each state has to setup their instant rebate program, and it's taking some time. Also, HVAC companies aren't that great in reading up about the IRA. Overall, the IRA isn't talked about enough. They did a lot of things, like focus on American-made EVs and established a 15% minimum tax for corporations. True, the IRA isn't perfect, but I think it's a solid improvement. The more that I learn about it, the more that I like. I didn't know about the support for Native American tribes until now.
@@ChrisLhamon It didn't reduce inflation . Added to national debt. Why name a bill it doesn't do? Would have been better to name it what it actually is. Corporation tax is roughly 25% now. Kamala's economic plan includes an increase in corporate taxes. How long does it take to charge your EV? I bought one and it takes a minimum of 2 hours to charge. What's the make and model of your EV?
@@Brunette747 I mean inflation only fell after the IRA passed, economists said it would very slightly decrease inflation, and the CBO has rated it as reducing the deficit, not adding to the national debt. Seriously, google it. No EVs take 2 hours to charge at a normal supercharger, maybe at home. You really gotta better inform yourself. It’s sad to see weeks before a very important election.
Does it not bother you how she essentially doesn’t even begin to discuss the Inflation Reduction Act? Go watch Hank Green’s summary and tell me honestly that she didnt leave most of the bill out of her video.
Should have said this in my previous comment. THANK YOU VERY MUCH for the thoughtful and informative videos! I know they take a lot of time to research, compose, edit, etc. Thank you, sincerely, for your public service.
Great video! Highlighting the need to spend that money in ways that enhance environmental justice is absolutely essential. That said, I am also worried that the whole debt ceiling thing could endanger some of the IRA funding. Let's hope it just all stays intact and we make it through this decade with siginificant emissions cuts.
That is a good point, since so many of these programs are only just getting started that (what is hopefully) a temporary debt ceiling debacle won't impact the funds too much.
I had not heard of the high efficiency electric home rebate act. I want to get a hot water heat pump so that may help. $$$ up front would help. Thanks.
The IRA gave me much more hope where there really wasn't any. I would wish I could hear explanations from someone like you for instance to tell us i.e. me the difference between the IRA and the New Green Deal how far away are they from being the same thing and how Joe Manchin was able to keep the original proposal from going all the way?
i think the biggest difference between the two is the green new deal wanted to directly spend money and envisioned the government going out and getting stuff built, whereas the inflation reduction act puts a lot of the onus on individuals, organizations and companies to go out and get the money to do a thing. i wish i had time to do a point-by-point breakdown of the evolution of all these bills, but the closest I can offer you is this spreadsheet that charts the different spending of the various interactions of the bills: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iHbr4Ph3cD7r30Z093pWUMV2P1kLhywAeW2UilVp09U/edit#gid=0
@@zentouro That's really nice of you of to share your expertise with us, I'll click the link and learn more of what I need to. It's very important that you and Adam keep making these vids. Thanks again!
I used to do analytical chemical testing of Superfund sites (and manufacturing sites) in the 1980s and 1990s (for PCBs and Dioxin) until the fed govt stopped funding the Superfund. I'm glad to hear the Superfund will be back. Thank you as always for your channel content.
@@zentouro I loved it. Initially, we tested water, soil, sediment samples from Love Canal in Niagara Falls, NY. By the end, we were testing effluent stream samples for chlorinated dioxins and furans from pulp and paper bleaching. The pulp and paper industry was reducing its chlorination bleaching. In 1999-2000, the funding ended and the testing laboratory was closed.
thanks so much for sharing. i feel like so much of my knowledge of Superfunds is from Love Canal so often being used as The Case Study in every environmental science course I've taken. So it is very cool to meet someone who was actually part of that!
A few things perturb me about the electric car trend though. while the impact to decreasing tailpipe emissions can not be understated new risks are arising. (Ex: plastics are byproducts of oil, recycling plastic components for vehicles at end of life is not meaningful, Geopolitcal/human rights risks for sourcing lithium and other rare earth metals, etc)
Great point, also my understanding is that there is no good way to either recycle or dispose of lithium batteries, and that they can cause a lot of ecological damage. Personally, I think it’s worth it to shift to electric cars since climate change (fueled by pollution) is such an imminent threat to the planet and switching to electric cars would significantly reduce emissions, but we absolutely need to be thinking about and trying to address the problems with electric cars
@@val.628 We need to stop focusing on cars so much, there are better forms of transportation for sustainability that need to be the priority. We already have reliable electric trains that don't need batteries, so we should make more since a large amount of Americans have little-no train access. We need to make more communities that prioritize walking and biking to get around to their daily destinations, no emissions and free exercise. Cars should be a last resort, we should definitely have the existing ones be electric, but we should decrease the need for them as much as possible. I encourage you to do some learning about urbanism for even more reasons why we should rely on cars as little as possible.
Great overview of this impactful new investment in a better future! I am not from the US, but i understand that action there will have a big impact even to us.
well for starters its called the inflation reduction act colloquially, the actual bill is a reconciliation bill so its name is "To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14." And it isn't just about climate. I just focused on the climate aspects.
If you're curious how the IRA might apply to you personally, I'd recommend Rewiring America's calculator: www.rewiringamerica.org/app/ira-calculator For organizations or groups looking to get IRA funding, yeah, they're going to need people who can figure out the system.
@@zentouro And, speaking as someone who appreciates the work you do, and has sent your explainers around, I'd recommend re-reading the bill. It requires the the gov to lease 62M acres of public lands *before* leasing any for solar/wind. It gives somewhere north of $3billion in subsidies for CCS tech (carbon capture, utilization and storage), a very profitable set of lies which slows the transition from fossil fuels while raking in billions. And more. It's greenwashing of the highest order, a giveaway to fossil fuel companies, "green" grifters, NGOs and beltway insiders.
@TaoOfStuff -- all of those concerns are mentioned in the video. And there is a reason Raya's quotes about it not being perfect, or the GND we wanted are in there. You're also not quite right about the leases. While I agree tying the leasing of land for renewable energy to fossil fuel development is messed up, the bill only requires the offering of public lands, it does not require the leases actually be bought. There is a lot I don't like in the IRA, but there is also a lot to like, and I think dismissing the entire thing as greenwashing is unfair -- particularly because of how the funding is allocated. If we dismiss the entire bill then the only people that will benefit are the fossil fuel interest rather than the individuals, organizations, and states that need to proactively seek out the funding.
@@zentouro First, the history is clear. There's no such thing as viable, exploitable public land offered for sale that isn't eventually sold and exploited, and any delay in that is merely PR. Fossil fuel companies regularly buy and sock away leases they can exploit later, in order to provide their shareholders with stability, and for the bump they usually get in the market. It's an asset class for them, and they only hold off on exploitation to the extent necessary to create the scarcity required to keep the price up at the pump. I'm consciously choosing to receive your reply to that as naive, rather than disingenuous, because I think you've earned that. But seriously, go look at the hit ConocoPhillips (COP-N) took when Biden took office and did the dog and pony show about "no new leases", and then look at their steady rise since the Willow Project was approved by BLM. Your overall reaction to this, accepting "the bad with the good", is the exact point of it. I don't think my evaluation of it is unfair at all, and that opinion is backed up by the fact that it was signed into law by the same people who green lit the Willow Project, and have approved 7118 new drilling permits (who even knew it was possible to beat Trump's number), etc. Any bets what climate-destroying "compromises" will be negotiated because of the ceiling debt nonsense? I expect you know the timelines better than I do--there's no time for half-measures, and this doesn't even come close meeting that low bar. It's just enough so the brunch crowd can go back to their eggs benedict. Provided of course that enough of us nod our heads and agree sagaciously that, yes, this is "better than nothing". A phrase which anyone who understands critical thresholds and tipping points the way you do should reject out of hand.
you're right, this video could have used one! this is not updated nearly enough but if you want a retroactive puppy break here's her instagram: instagram.com/darcestagram/
Interesting perspective- I’m generally skeptical of using race as a metric in policy like this but it is important that the bill is accessible to economically depressed communities like Native Americans. Great work!
lol nothing? and no? i'm quite a bit further left than the democratic party in the United States. i highly doubt they'd give me money even if i wanted it.
As a public policy major, what we’re seeing here is just how the implementation of laws tends to go. And seeing little public process after just 6 months absolutely does not mean nothing will happen, this is just how the first stage of implementation of such a massive law looks. It’s a slow and difficult process to create programs (sometimes from scratch) and to negotiate where funds will go, which as described in the video is often done through potential recipients applying for grants. The process of just writing grant proposals is arduous and time-consuming; some people’s entire jobs are to write grant proposals to try to get funding from various agencies. And then there’s processing all of the grant proposals, which as you can imagine will take a whole lot of time with the volume of them from organizations and individuals across the U.S. The public just doesn’t see much of this part of the process, so we’ll only have more information once decisions have been made as to who will be receiving grants and for how much. That being said, I do think that key definitions (such as what qualifies as a disadvantaged community) should have been determined quickly so that organizations and individuals could know whether they are eligible for funds. I also think the slow nature of this process highlights the benefit of funding government agencies themselves (instead of mostly providing grants to private organizations) because it circumvents the whole grant process, and a single government agency can often be more organized and swift in its efforts instead of trying to coordinate hundreds of individual private organizations. This is an area where the Green New Deal would have been preferable - the Green New Deal focuses on government projects that would actually be carried out by government agencies themselves. I think creating more jobs in the public sector this way would also be very beneficial. Nonetheless, the Inflation Reduction Act is set to have a monumental impact by reducing emissions, improving the resilience of infrastructure to withstand worsening natural disasters, providing clean water to more people, and addressing issues of environmental justice so that disadvantaged communities that have historically (and often continuously) been targeted for exploitation and disproportionately impacted by environmental damage have more resources to recover (from negative impacts such as polluted air, water, and soil and insufficient infrastructure that has left them vulnerable to natural disasters and other health and safety hazards). These things are in the works, and there is no question that the law will make a difference.
@@zentouro He follows just about everything Economics, He wrote some excellent books, some of which are om youtube in audiobook format. He has a website to his name. I see him here and there on podcasts . Maybe you could get him on., this being an important topic. There's also Yanis Varoufakis and Prof. Richard Wolf whom I also learned a lot from. But Michael Hudson is IMO the beast one out there. Have a nice day ✌
It's insane to me how you spent this entire video essentially NOT addressing the Inflation Reduction Act in any meaningful way or addressing climate change, but periphery notions of "justice" and Native American issues. And you intentionally keep saying that the IRA money is supposed to go to "people" or "organizations" but it's not. Especially not "organizations." It's supposed to go to companies to build things and all Americans who buy green tech -- you made sure to focus on how tax credits are inherently disproportionately going to certain groups. You didn't mention anything specific the bill has done to spur half a trillion in investment, because god forbid you mention private corporations investing... Salter said literally nothing about what the bill has done, but harped on about "environmental racism" instead. So throughout the whole video, the only concrete thing discussed was Indian Health Service $3.5 B in funding...from a different bill. She started the video by falsely stating as a matter of fact that the bill has a lot of bad in it, despite it not. This is why voters have no understanding about liberal/progressive policies when they're passed in any form. You didn't even mention the very closely related Chips Act! "Research from climate policy analyst Jack Conness has revealed that $99 billion worth of 130 climate-friendly tech manufacturing investments within the United States have been announced by companies since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, creating 80,200 projected jobs as of October 31, 2023; when considered together with CHIPS Act investments, the total comes out to 154 projects worth $240 billion creating 97,500 jobs." Battery technology for example is being rapidly being invested in, with factories popping up everywhere and R&D raging in every respectable university. Jobs with high wages being created. No mention.
@@coreyleander7911 Trump had the highest employment of all people in America with very little spending. Massive spending just feeds inflation and high interest rates.
@@christopherstimpson6540 In April 2023 the unemployment rate in the US was lower than at *any time under Trump*, and that was before a massive global pandemic that shocked supply chains. This inflation the globe is experiencing is not fed by spending. It was and is fed by supply chain destruction from Covid and their slow recovery since. The US has the least inflation/interest rates of any Western country.
@@coreyleander7911 33 trillion dollars, 2 possibly 3 new wars, unlimited immigration budgets. Yes there are good things in this bill but at what cost. It should be called the inflation production act.
@@coreyleander7911 just give 1 example of how? One of the most helpful things this bill would do is to help veterans get help and disability. While that looks good it’s 350 million dollars
@@uglytruth21 IRA is deflationary because it expands the production of goods like oil/gas and industrial inputs (makes supply go up) and therefore makes prices go down or slow in increase. One of the most helpful things this bill has done is spark a manufacturing boom. Please check into before voting this November
@@coreyleander7911 Gas got as low as $1.87 in Texas during the previous administration. $3+ a gallon today is not an amount I would say is better. The current administration released 1 million barrels of gasoline from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves in 2022 and 2024. The SPR is an emergency supply of crude oil that should be reserved for our military defense. Then the government bought gasoline at higher prices. That's why it went back up. They had to pay themselves back for the upcharge. Probably will be the same situation in the near future. 2024 happens to be an election year. I'm not entirely upset. I do appreciate the small price decrease. I wish the current administration could be as effective to reduce gas prices as the previous administration.
@@Brunette747 how come you’re citing gas prices during the pandemic when they famously dropped around the world during lockdown? Average gas prices under Trump were $2.80 in 2018. Gas prices near me are $3.10 - $3.20. If we only had 2% inflation every year since 2018 like we’re supposed to, gas prices would be $3.15 today. So we’re five cents higher than we should be, even with all the inflation in 2022 Edit: since you edited your response to include more claims, I will respond. You say Trump decreased gas prices, but gas prices were lower under Obama, especially in 2016. The Biden administration released oil from the SPR precisely because gas prices went up after Russia invaded Ukraine, it wasn’t the cause of the gas price increase - in fact it decreased it. We’ve now refilled the SPR at lower prices therefore the government is making a profit. Just google it. You have it exactly opposite to how it actually happened
Heatpumps are far more efficient than standard air conditioners and they're also not combusting inside peoples homes like traditional boilers - which have significant health impacts for the people living in those homes as well as folks outside working/nearby. Dark surfaces, lack of plant life, and pollution from cars plays a much larger role in heat islands than exhaust from heat pumps (and even air conditioners).
@@HebaruSan That would be in the winter I believe. I mean heat islands in cities can form in the summer but I take your point. I live in a warm climate. My husband is an HVAC contractor and I am an environmental Chemist. Thank you for your comment.
@@zentouro Agreed.That makes sense. Thank you for your time. I own a super efficient heat pump (20 SEER) and live in a very warm climate that will reach deadly wet bulb temps more frequently . I want to buy a heat pump water heater and dryer heat pump. I have bought new windows and insulated my house better (for which I got $400 credits so far in past years). You are correct that many factors contribute to the heat island effect and thank you for listing them.
@@zentouro Not even close. It be a good first step, but the idea that an energy transition to net-zero or close is less than $1 trillion is devoid of all reality. Im just getting into your channel, so id like to see what degree you get into discussions of decarbonization plans. It always astounds me how little conversation there historically has been by congress and the white house on decarbonization plans written by the US Department of Energy. How many americans do you think are even aware of the fact that the DOE has full scale net-zero emission energy transition plans? Why does NOBODY ever talk about the US DOE National Renewable Electricity Futures Study? This covers just energy aspect of a transition and its estimated at $7.8 trillion.
I bought a house this year, and later this year I'm going to use the IRA to move from natural gas to a heat pump. I'll also be adding solar, but I don't think I can do that until next year. I already have an electric car, so I'm good for a while.
My only worry is how to get the rebate for the heat pump. Each state has to setup their instant rebate program, and it's taking some time. Also, HVAC companies aren't that great in reading up about the IRA.
Overall, the IRA isn't talked about enough. They did a lot of things, like focus on American-made EVs and established a 15% minimum tax for corporations. True, the IRA isn't perfect, but I think it's a solid improvement. The more that I learn about it, the more that I like. I didn't know about the support for Native American tribes until now.
@@ChrisLhamon It didn't reduce inflation . Added to national debt. Why name a bill it doesn't do? Would have been better to name it what it actually is.
Corporation tax is roughly 25% now. Kamala's economic plan includes an increase in corporate taxes.
How long does it take to charge your EV? I bought one and it takes a minimum of 2 hours to charge. What's the make and model of your EV?
@@Brunette747 I mean inflation only fell after the IRA passed, economists said it would very slightly decrease inflation, and the CBO has rated it as reducing the deficit, not adding to the national debt. Seriously, google it.
No EVs take 2 hours to charge at a normal supercharger, maybe at home.
You really gotta better inform yourself. It’s sad to see weeks before a very important election.
This channel should be huge. Thanks for gathering and presenting all this information, and giving a platform to experts too.
Does it not bother you how she essentially doesn’t even begin to discuss the Inflation Reduction Act? Go watch Hank Green’s summary and tell me honestly that she didnt leave most of the bill out of her video.
Should have said this in my previous comment. THANK YOU VERY MUCH for the thoughtful and informative videos! I know they take a lot of time to research, compose, edit, etc. Thank you, sincerely, for your public service.
I appreciate this extremely nuanced perspective! Thanks for making the state of climate legislation understandable and accessible as always
What was nuanced about it? She didn’t even discuss the IRA…
Thanks for answering these questions.
Great video! Highlighting the need to spend that money in ways that enhance environmental justice is absolutely essential. That said, I am also worried that the whole debt ceiling thing could endanger some of the IRA funding. Let's hope it just all stays intact and we make it through this decade with siginificant emissions cuts.
That is a good point, since so many of these programs are only just getting started that (what is hopefully) a temporary debt ceiling debacle won't impact the funds too much.
I had not heard of the high efficiency electric home rebate act. I want to get a hot water heat pump so that may help. $$$ up front would help. Thanks.
Rewiring America has a calculator for checking what credits/rebates you may be eligible for: www.rewiringamerica.org/app/ira-calculator
@@zentouro Oh wow, thank you. I signed up to get updates from this website.
Most recent “proposed” congressional budget guts the IRA. Make sure you stay involved.
yes, if people take one thing away from this video it is 'please stay involved'
Great video! Thank you :)
The IRA gave me much more hope where there really wasn't any. I would wish I could hear explanations from someone like you for instance to tell us i.e. me the difference between the IRA and the New Green Deal how far away are they from being the same thing and how Joe Manchin was able to keep the original proposal from going all the way?
i think the biggest difference between the two is the green new deal wanted to directly spend money and envisioned the government going out and getting stuff built, whereas the inflation reduction act puts a lot of the onus on individuals, organizations and companies to go out and get the money to do a thing.
i wish i had time to do a point-by-point breakdown of the evolution of all these bills, but the closest I can offer you is this spreadsheet that charts the different spending of the various interactions of the bills: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iHbr4Ph3cD7r30Z093pWUMV2P1kLhywAeW2UilVp09U/edit#gid=0
@@zentouro That's really nice of you of to share your expertise with us, I'll click the link and learn more of what I need to. It's very important that you and Adam keep making these vids. Thanks again!
When you are off the grid, you are not even counted as utility bills are often used to identify a household.
This is an amazing video!
Very important journalism you're doing! Keep it up❤
What journalism? She doesn’t discuss the IRA at all in this video…go watch Hank Green’s summary to see that she didn’t
I used to do analytical chemical testing of Superfund sites (and manufacturing sites) in the 1980s and 1990s (for PCBs and Dioxin) until the fed govt stopped funding the Superfund. I'm glad to hear the Superfund will be back. Thank you as always for your channel content.
oh wow such important work! I'd love to hear more about what it was like
@@zentouro I loved it. Initially, we tested water, soil, sediment samples from Love Canal in Niagara Falls, NY. By the end, we were testing effluent stream samples for chlorinated dioxins and furans from pulp and paper bleaching. The pulp and paper industry was reducing its chlorination bleaching. In 1999-2000, the funding ended and the testing laboratory was closed.
thanks so much for sharing. i feel like so much of my knowledge of Superfunds is from Love Canal so often being used as The Case Study in every environmental science course I've taken. So it is very cool to meet someone who was actually part of that!
@@zentouro Awww thanks, yup. Thanks for all you are doing.
@@dianewallace6064Do you actually believe this video did justice to the IRA? Come on
Why is this channel so SMALL? MORE COMMUNITY. I love it here.
Also made my day hearing Diné spoken.
A few things perturb me about the electric car trend though. while the impact to decreasing tailpipe emissions can not be understated new risks are arising. (Ex: plastics are byproducts of oil, recycling plastic components for vehicles at end of life is not meaningful, Geopolitcal/human rights risks for sourcing lithium and other rare earth metals, etc)
Great point, also my understanding is that there is no good way to either recycle or dispose of lithium batteries, and that they can cause a lot of ecological damage. Personally, I think it’s worth it to shift to electric cars since climate change (fueled by pollution) is such an imminent threat to the planet and switching to electric cars would significantly reduce emissions, but we absolutely need to be thinking about and trying to address the problems with electric cars
@@val.628 We need to stop focusing on cars so much, there are better forms of transportation for sustainability that need to be the priority. We already have reliable electric trains that don't need batteries, so we should make more since a large amount of Americans have little-no train access. We need to make more communities that prioritize walking and biking to get around to their daily destinations, no emissions and free exercise. Cars should be a last resort, we should definitely have the existing ones be electric, but we should decrease the need for them as much as possible. I encourage you to do some learning about urbanism for even more reasons why we should rely on cars as little as possible.
@@Kaito_Falconis that u, kLaUs SchEab?
@@jerry42023 I don't think so lol.
@@Kaito_Falcon is your copy of "Rules For Radicals" autographed by Saul Alynski?
Great video - thanks for putting it together.
Thank you so much for doing these very informative videos, I'm always looking forward to them!
Great overview of this impactful new investment in a better future! I am not from the US, but i understand that action there will have a big impact even to us.
Very glad RUclips reccomended this channel to me
Why call it the reduction inflation act at all if it’s all about climate and we all knew it would not reduce inflation. At least at a useful rate.
well for starters its called the inflation reduction act colloquially, the actual bill is a reconciliation bill so its name is "To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14." And it isn't just about climate. I just focused on the climate aspects.
Great video, thank you! Even if it's not perfect and needs continued yelling, it's good to hear about some progress every now and then :)
Let's hope it doesn't get screwed up with the debt ceiling talks.
So glad you made this Miriam! I feel like chasing up on policy down the line is soooo important.
Excellent!
Thanks
So, to sum it all up: "The IRA is great! You just need to hire an accountant to figure out how to use it..."
If you're curious how the IRA might apply to you personally, I'd recommend Rewiring America's calculator: www.rewiringamerica.org/app/ira-calculator
For organizations or groups looking to get IRA funding, yeah, they're going to need people who can figure out the system.
@@zentouro And, speaking as someone who appreciates the work you do, and has sent your explainers around, I'd recommend re-reading the bill. It requires the the gov to lease 62M acres of public lands *before* leasing any for solar/wind. It gives somewhere north of $3billion in subsidies for CCS tech (carbon capture, utilization and storage), a very profitable set of lies which slows the transition from fossil fuels while raking in billions. And more. It's greenwashing of the highest order, a giveaway to fossil fuel companies, "green" grifters, NGOs and beltway insiders.
@TaoOfStuff -- all of those concerns are mentioned in the video. And there is a reason Raya's quotes about it not being perfect, or the GND we wanted are in there.
You're also not quite right about the leases. While I agree tying the leasing of land for renewable energy to fossil fuel development is messed up, the bill only requires the offering of public lands, it does not require the leases actually be bought.
There is a lot I don't like in the IRA, but there is also a lot to like, and I think dismissing the entire thing as greenwashing is unfair -- particularly because of how the funding is allocated. If we dismiss the entire bill then the only people that will benefit are the fossil fuel interest rather than the individuals, organizations, and states that need to proactively seek out the funding.
@@zentouro First, the history is clear. There's no such thing as viable, exploitable public land offered for sale that isn't eventually sold and exploited, and any delay in that is merely PR. Fossil fuel companies regularly buy and sock away leases they can exploit later, in order to provide their shareholders with stability, and for the bump they usually get in the market. It's an asset class for them, and they only hold off on exploitation to the extent necessary to create the scarcity required to keep the price up at the pump. I'm consciously choosing to receive your reply to that as naive, rather than disingenuous, because I think you've earned that. But seriously, go look at the hit ConocoPhillips (COP-N) took when Biden took office and did the dog and pony show about "no new leases", and then look at their steady rise since the Willow Project was approved by BLM.
Your overall reaction to this, accepting "the bad with the good", is the exact point of it. I don't think my evaluation of it is unfair at all, and that opinion is backed up by the fact that it was signed into law by the same people who green lit the Willow Project, and have approved 7118 new drilling permits (who even knew it was possible to beat Trump's number), etc. Any bets what climate-destroying "compromises" will be negotiated because of the ceiling debt nonsense?
I expect you know the timelines better than I do--there's no time for half-measures, and this doesn't even come close meeting that low bar. It's just enough so the brunch crowd can go back to their eggs benedict. Provided of course that enough of us nod our heads and agree sagaciously that, yes, this is "better than nothing". A phrase which anyone who understands critical thresholds and tipping points the way you do should reject out of hand.
Thanks for the video! but please bring the mandatory puppy break back :D
you're right, this video could have used one! this is not updated nearly enough but if you want a retroactive puppy break here's her instagram: instagram.com/darcestagram/
📍11:03
Thank you so much for doing this work and sharing it with us
Yada yada about the environment... Why was it called the INFLATION REDUCTION Act? Sounds like a bait and switch, sycophant
Because it very very slightly expected to reduce inflation while passing at a time high inflation. Sounds like you are a Trumper
Climate bill? I thought it was reducing inflation
i uh, spend the entire video discussing why it is a climate bill.
Well it does slightly by expanding oil and gas supply
Interesting perspective- I’m generally skeptical of using race as a metric in policy like this but it is important that the bill is accessible to economically depressed communities like Native Americans. Great work!
How much does the dnc pay u? Do u attend the davos meetings?
lol nothing? and no? i'm quite a bit further left than the democratic party in the United States. i highly doubt they'd give me money even if i wanted it.
So 6 month in and still no even an idea on how to do it, sure the future look promising...
As a public policy major, what we’re seeing here is just how the implementation of laws tends to go. And seeing little public process after just 6 months absolutely does not mean nothing will happen, this is just how the first stage of implementation of such a massive law looks. It’s a slow and difficult process to create programs (sometimes from scratch) and to negotiate where funds will go, which as described in the video is often done through potential recipients applying for grants. The process of just writing grant proposals is arduous and time-consuming; some people’s entire jobs are to write grant proposals to try to get funding from various agencies. And then there’s processing all of the grant proposals, which as you can imagine will take a whole lot of time with the volume of them from organizations and individuals across the U.S. The public just doesn’t see much of this part of the process, so we’ll only have more information once decisions have been made as to who will be receiving grants and for how much.
That being said, I do think that key definitions (such as what qualifies as a disadvantaged community) should have been determined quickly so that organizations and individuals could know whether they are eligible for funds. I also think the slow nature of this process highlights the benefit of funding government agencies themselves (instead of mostly providing grants to private organizations) because it circumvents the whole grant process, and a single government agency can often be more organized and swift in its efforts instead of trying to coordinate hundreds of individual private organizations. This is an area where the Green New Deal would have been preferable - the Green New Deal focuses on government projects that would actually be carried out by government agencies themselves. I think creating more jobs in the public sector this way would also be very beneficial.
Nonetheless, the Inflation Reduction Act is set to have a monumental impact by reducing emissions, improving the resilience of infrastructure to withstand worsening natural disasters, providing clean water to more people, and addressing issues of environmental justice so that disadvantaged communities that have historically (and often continuously) been targeted for exploitation and disproportionately impacted by environmental damage have more resources to recover (from negative impacts such as polluted air, water, and soil and insufficient infrastructure that has left them vulnerable to natural disasters and other health and safety hazards). These things are in the works, and there is no question that the law will make a difference.
I still can't afford an electric car...oh well, I guess all those rich people will use my tax dollars to get a discount on one...
you cant afford a $20k car? you have bigger problems then
❤❤❤
I recommend you ask Prof. Michael Hudson, a very senior economist.
has he spoken about the IRA?
@@zentouro He follows just about everything Economics,
He wrote some excellent books, some of which are om youtube in audiobook format.
He has a website to his name.
I see him here and there on podcasts .
Maybe you could get him on., this being an important topic.
There's also Yanis Varoufakis and Prof. Richard Wolf whom I also learned a lot from. But Michael Hudson is IMO the beast one out there.
Have a nice day ✌
It's insane to me how you spent this entire video essentially NOT addressing the Inflation Reduction Act in any meaningful way or addressing climate change, but periphery notions of "justice" and Native American issues. And you intentionally keep saying that the IRA money is supposed to go to "people" or "organizations" but it's not. Especially not "organizations." It's supposed to go to companies to build things and all Americans who buy green tech -- you made sure to focus on how tax credits are inherently disproportionately going to certain groups. You didn't mention anything specific the bill has done to spur half a trillion in investment, because god forbid you mention private corporations investing...
Salter said literally nothing about what the bill has done, but harped on about "environmental racism" instead. So throughout the whole video, the only concrete thing discussed was Indian Health Service $3.5 B in funding...from a different bill. She started the video by falsely stating as a matter of fact that the bill has a lot of bad in it, despite it not.
This is why voters have no understanding about liberal/progressive policies when they're passed in any form. You didn't even mention the very closely related Chips Act! "Research from climate policy analyst Jack Conness has revealed that $99 billion worth of 130 climate-friendly tech manufacturing investments within the United States have been announced by companies since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, creating 80,200 projected jobs as of October 31, 2023; when considered together with CHIPS Act investments, the total comes out to 154 projects worth $240 billion creating 97,500 jobs."
Battery technology for example is being rapidly being invested in, with factories popping up everywhere and R&D raging in every respectable university. Jobs with high wages being created. No mention.
This Inflation Reduction Act actually creates a massive amount of inflation. Interest rates will keep going up for many years to come.
No it doesn't. Why are you opposed to massive spending in America? Trump administration never invested in our country like this.
@@coreyleander7911 Trump had the highest employment of all people in America with very little spending. Massive spending just feeds inflation and high interest rates.
@@christopherstimpson6540 In April 2023 the unemployment rate in the US was lower than at *any time under Trump*, and that was before a massive global pandemic that shocked supply chains.
This inflation the globe is experiencing is not fed by spending. It was and is fed by supply chain destruction from Covid and their slow recovery since. The US has the least inflation/interest rates of any Western country.
How would spending more money reduce inflation???
Why do you think spending money generally here has much to do with the type of inflation we're seeing -- that the whole world is seeing?
@@coreyleander7911 33 trillion dollars, 2 possibly 3 new wars, unlimited immigration budgets. Yes there are good things in this bill but at what cost. It should be called the inflation production act.
@@uglytruth21 IRAs deflationary. Please seek education
@@coreyleander7911 just give 1 example of how? One of the most helpful things this bill would do is to help veterans get help and disability. While that looks good it’s 350 million dollars
@@uglytruth21 IRA is deflationary because it expands the production of goods like oil/gas and industrial inputs (makes supply go up) and therefore makes prices go down or slow in increase. One of the most helpful things this bill has done is spark a manufacturing boom. Please check into before voting this November
None of this would reduce inflation and bring down the cost of living.
Except it does since it expands the supply of gas and oil.
@@coreyleander7911 I can't tell by the energy and gas prices.
@@Brunette747 you can’t? Gas has gone down since 2022. We now produce more gas and oil than ever before under any President
@@coreyleander7911 Gas got as low as $1.87 in Texas during the previous administration. $3+ a gallon today is not an amount I would say is better.
The current administration released 1 million barrels of gasoline from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves in 2022 and 2024. The SPR is an emergency supply of crude oil that should be reserved for our military defense. Then the government bought gasoline at higher prices. That's why it went back up. They had to pay themselves back for the upcharge. Probably will be the same situation in the near future.
2024 happens to be an election year. I'm not entirely upset. I do appreciate the small price decrease. I wish the current administration could be as effective to reduce gas prices as the previous administration.
@@Brunette747 how come you’re citing gas prices during the pandemic when they famously dropped around the world during lockdown? Average gas prices under Trump were $2.80 in 2018. Gas prices near me are $3.10 - $3.20. If we only had 2% inflation every year since 2018 like we’re supposed to, gas prices would be $3.15 today. So we’re five cents higher than we should be, even with all the inflation in 2022
Edit: since you edited your response to include more claims, I will respond. You say Trump decreased gas prices, but gas prices were lower under Obama, especially in 2016.
The Biden administration released oil from the SPR precisely because gas prices went up after Russia invaded Ukraine, it wasn’t the cause of the gas price increase - in fact it decreased it. We’ve now refilled the SPR at lower prices therefore the government is making a profit. Just google it. You have it exactly opposite to how it actually happened
Heat Pumps are good but they still cause heat islands in cities and suburbs which hurts workers who have to work outside and the houseless.
Heatpumps are far more efficient than standard air conditioners and they're also not combusting inside peoples homes like traditional boilers - which have significant health impacts for the people living in those homes as well as folks outside working/nearby.
Dark surfaces, lack of plant life, and pollution from cars plays a much larger role in heat islands than exhaust from heat pumps (and even air conditioners).
FYI, when a heat pump operates in its house-warming mode, it emits COLDER air into the environment, not hot.
@@HebaruSan That would be in the winter I believe. I mean heat islands in cities can form in the summer but I take your point. I live in a warm climate. My husband is an HVAC contractor and I am an environmental Chemist. Thank you for your comment.
@@zentouro Agreed.That makes sense. Thank you for your time. I own a super efficient heat pump (20 SEER) and live in a very warm climate that will reach deadly wet bulb temps more frequently . I want to buy a heat pump water heater and dryer heat pump. I have bought new windows and insulated my house better (for which I got $400 credits so far in past years). You are correct that many factors contribute to the heat island effect and thank you for listing them.
Imagen if we coud spend 700 billion a year on climate change.
we'd probably get a transition to a low emission and hopefully more just world before 2030.
@@zentouro Not even close. It be a good first step, but the idea that an energy transition to net-zero or close is less than $1 trillion is devoid of all reality. Im just getting into your channel, so id like to see what degree you get into discussions of decarbonization plans.
It always astounds me how little conversation there historically has been by congress and the white house on decarbonization plans written by the US Department of Energy. How many americans do you think are even aware of the fact that the DOE has full scale net-zero emission energy transition plans?
Why does NOBODY ever talk about the US DOE National Renewable Electricity Futures Study? This covers just energy aspect of a transition and its estimated at $7.8 trillion.