Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of MacroBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of MacroBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Personal Finance / Macroeconomic Trends & Risks
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (14) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 4460 
Subject: Re: Cutting Greenhouse Emissions in Europe
Date: 09/26/25 10:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 1
Americans were good with the acts in 2022.

By which I assume you mean the Inflation Reduction Act, and specifically the various subsidies for certain emission reducing activities.

There is modest support for such things. But those programs are nowhere near sufficient to materially reduce emissions. You can make small reductions in emissions for a small amount of cost. Many Americans are willing to support small costs to fight climate change. So small reductions in emissions are possible. But there is virtually no political support for larger costs to fight climate change, and you can't actually achieve material reductions in emissions without incurring larger costs.

Do not confuse the modest measures that can get adopted with the more significant measures that would have to be adopted (but never are) in order to actually meet the specific goals of limiting emissions.

That's why even when political parties that are predisposed to measures to reduce climate change get power (either in the U.S. or abroad), they never adopt stringent enough measures to actually achieve the levels of reduction necessary to materially reduce emissions by enough to achieve their stated goals. That's especially true in the U.S., where there is a particularly low appetite for non-trivial sacrifice.

Meanwhile, a blurb on the radio said EV sales are up.

It would be shocking if they weren't - with the $7,500 tax credit disappearing on 9/30, a lot of EV sales are being pulled forward into this quarter.

I would expect that EV sales will continue to increase for a while (though perhaps not the next few quarters), if only because so many automakers have invested so much capital into developing EV's. With so much new product coming to market, you're likely to see increased uptake. But the hoped-for "s-curve" in EV adoption seems a bit unlikely now.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 4,454 posts about Macroeconomic Trends & Risks. The article-length ones it recommended most:
AI Tarpits · 36 recs · 2026
End of an era - profit slowdown · 36 recs · 2023
Control Panel: Trend changes in 2026 · 34 recs · 2026
From the Oregon Bay Area (a blogger) · 33 recs · 2025
Lerner Symmetry Theorem · 32 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (14) |


Announcements
Macroeconomic Trends & Risks FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Macro | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community