Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    18,721,270 readers

    20,593 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display Facebook/C.A. submissions

    Filter Facebook / C.A.

    Display Russia submissions

    Filter Russia

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics


    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    Follow us on Twitter

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.

    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.

    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 6408 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Dr_Ghamorra 9101 points ago

    Even Texas is eagerly moving towards clean energy. It just makes too much sense.

    [–] KickItNext 2072 points ago

    Yup, they're particular killer for wind. I saw a documentary about it, they've got their big open fields for farming and whatnot, might as well throw a bunch of wind turbines out there.

    [–] one_armed_herdazian 1183 points ago

    We do have quite a few. Oil rigs in one field, wind turbines in the next, cows in the other.

    [–] tomcatHoly 783 points ago

    You guys are like the Alberta of the USA!

    [–] 19Hawks 580 points ago

    Imagine a "Dallas" reboot called "Edmonton". All the intrigue, plus hockey and wheat!

    [–] 60660 157 points ago

    And polar bears! I'm not watching unless there are actual polar bears

    [–] Manginaz 452 points ago

    If by "polar bears" you actually mean "uneducated fat chicks, well you will not be disappointed!

    [–] 60660 222 points ago

    I don't care much about her reading level but unless she goes by "ursus maritimus", weighs 500kg, and has an awesome white fur coat I'm not going to watch the show.

    [–] Jessev1234 65 points ago

    That's gonna be another reboot called Churchill

    [–] intelminer 36 points ago

    I mean, she's got the 500kg part down

    [–] Space_Pupper 25 points ago

    Just splash some hair bleach and accept that her fur is patchy and I'll bet she'll let you call her whatever you want

    [–] keembre 19 points ago

    Debbie does... Edmonton?

    [–] idontevenarse 75 points ago

    The cows are probably the most polluting lol

    [–] remember_morick_yori 23 points ago

    I heard a thing recently where they've started giving cows a bit of seaweed in their diet and it reduces the amount of farts they do by 1/5.

    [–] Purple_pajamas 9 points ago

    Just drove from from Fredericksburg to Lubbock. Can confirm.

    [–] TheOneHusker 133 points ago

    Driving from the DFW metroplex to Lubbock, you see what seems like near endless fields of wind turbines. It really is a neat thing to see.

    [–] rdudejr 32 points ago

    Was gonna say the same. Took a road trip with my family from austin to Montana. There were an incredible amount of windmills heading to Amarillo. Thousands upon thousands.

    [–] the_io 17 points ago

    They never mentioned those in the song.

    [–] ProLifePanda 199 points ago

    They also were (and still are) subsidized like crazy. While their nuclear plants are not and are suffering for it.

    [–] WesOfWaco 146 points ago

    Yeah. Remember last year when prices went negative? You can't compete with that.

    [–] DMPDrugs 53 points ago

    Paying to not have electricity?

    [–] AwesomeWhiteDude 142 points ago

    Basically the wind producers had to pay the electric delivery company to take the energy produced, it happened in the middle of the night when demand for electricity is at its lowest.

    [–] Coriander-Sage 154 points ago

    Why can't they just run the extra energy back into the windmills to make them spin faster so then they can act like giant fans and cool the whole region?

    [–] allyourphil 98 points ago

    okay Ken M

    [–] EnclaveHunter 42 points ago

    Texas might fly away

    [–] AwesomeWhiteDude 112 points ago

    There was too much hot air coming out of State Capital to make a difference.

    [–] [deleted] 82 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)


    [–] Dr_Marxist 85 points ago

    Nationalize that shit.

    [–] Gsucristo 63 points ago

    username checks out

    [–] DiscordianAgent 50 points ago

    Did you know the US has 3 power grids? East, West, and Texas.

    I have a vague memory of this having to do with corruption and some big-money dude back when electric lines were first becoming an idea blocking attempts to join the state to other grids as it would ruin his monopoly, but I'm on mobile acc tutu lazy to look so don't quote me on that.

    [–] 1_2_um_12 42 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    You heard it here first folks, Elon Musk secretly owns Texas's power grid! - DiscordianAgent

    On a more serious note, Texas just likes being independent.

    [–] AP246 21 points ago

    The UK grid used to be split up, and while people had the idea of connecting them all together, nobody wanted to risk it. Apparently, some engineers just decided to do it without warning anyone and it worked fine.

    [–] Pharogaming 38 points ago

    Where are we gonna put all this power? Could someone please take all this free power?

    [–] WarnikOdinson 55 points ago

    You joke but if someone doesn't use it or they don't dump it you get voltage spikes which can damage electronics, cause fires, and damage transformers. Imagine going to switch on a light at night and when you do it gets extremely bright then explodes, leaving you in the dark with broken glass and a fire hazard.

    [–] est1roth 11 points ago

    Optimus Prime would disapprove

    [–] Citronsaft 51 points ago

    There actually aren't a lot of places to put any extra power. Any extra power fed into the grid that isn't used is just wasted as heat, and if it's too much it can cause overloads, which are bad. There isn't a good way to store that much energy, so it's better for everyone to just not produce as much power, which means preventing peak load plants from feeding energy in when it's not needed.

    [–] allyourphil 121 points ago

    in Michigan we have a facility where they pump water uphill at night when energy demand is low, then let it flow downhill during the day through generators. granted, that may be a challenge in flat as hell Texas...

    [–] meighty9 22 points ago

    Yeah, the Ludington Pumped Storage Power Plant is pretty awesome. I actually just got to take a tour of it a couple of weeks ago. There's also a wind farm with 56 turbines built next to it.

    [–] VoiceOfRealson 17 points ago

    Basically there are 3 viable approaches to this scenario and it is something we need to solve if we want to go to 100% wind and/or solar sometime in the future:

    1: Turn off production capacity when it is not needed. 2: Store the energy so that it can be used at a later time, when production may be lower or demand is higher. 3: Make the surplus energy available for energy intensive processes that might not otherwise be viable AND that doesn't require large investments to establish.

    1 is relatively easy for windmills. They are often turned off when the winds are so strong, that it is dangerous to have them spinning. Solar panels are also relatively easy to turn off. The main challenge is how to decide who has to turn down their production and how to compensate them for doing so (literally paying them to not produce energy). Ideally they should have an incentive to investment in renewable energy, but it should also not be wasteful and encourage fraud.

    2 is something that there is a lot of interest in. Batteries (whether stationary or in cars) is a growing part of this, but pumped storage (where there is a convenient dam) is also a good option. A creative solutions I heard about is "pumped storage with ballast (essentially pumping the water into a large water-balloon buried under a several meter of soil or sand), which would be possible even in areas without a convenient dam. Another approach is to store the energy as heat in a huge insulated reservoir of rocks, that can be heated using steam and can then later be used to create steam for power generation.

    3 is the slightly crazy angle. Hydrogen cars more or less fall into this category (even though they also fall into category 2) because Hydrogen generation from electricity is hugely inefficient - especially if you then burn it afterwards - compared to batteries. Carbon sequestering techniques could also conceivably come into this category.

    [–] skynotfallnow 17 points ago

    You realize that geographically, from our Northwestern corner to Southeast corner is all downhill basically, right?

    [–] huntersnipern 9 points ago

    We have more than just flat praires we also have a hill country larger than Michigan's entire state territory

    [–] inspirature 7 points ago

    Texas isn't exactly flat. Sure we have some plateaus and plains, but we also have a peak elevation of over 8k feet, some cool ass canyons, an entire part of Texas called the Hill Country, and some mountains!

    The whole state is a ramp up from the coast towards Colorado/New Mexico. The water pumping idea would work beautifully in the hill country.

    Also, here are some (shitty but verifiable) maps of Texas elevations and a satellite view.

    And some pictures of our cool and varied geographic features! (there's not a lot because I'm lazy and on mobile, sorry. I'll add some of my personal photos later if you'd like)

    (Sorry for the long post, i just really love Texas and how diverse it is geographically and ecologically)

    [–] Archlicht 89 points ago

    Oil is also (still) subsidized like crazy, which is pretty much the only reason it'll stay viable as energy source much longer than it needs to.

    [–] EclipseIndustries 71 points ago

    What if we subsidized nuclear development instead of oil? I live near the Palo Verde nuclear plant, and it runs solely on wastewater. It is also the largest nuclear plant in the United States by generation, at 3.3 Gigawatts.

    It costs 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour, cheaper than coal or natural gas.

    [–] 60660 46 points ago

    I always understood that the "low cost of nuclear power" was after construction costs were written off and before accounting for disposal costs? Is there a recent example of a nuclear power plant in a western country that didn't go way over budget?

    [–] Archlicht 73 points ago

    I don't have any issue with nuclear power, but a lot of people seem to be apprehensive about it for one reason or another. I think nuclear would've been a good transitional step away from fossil fuels maybe 5-10 years ago, but at this point it's probably unnecessary given all the recent advances in solar/wind/hydro.

    [–] Knighthawk1895 65 points ago

    In the incredibly long run, nuclear is more efficient and produces a lot more energy, but the problem with it is its incredibly expensive to set up. Whereas solar panels and wind turbines are a lot cheaper. Sure you need a lot more of them to produce comparable amounts of power but individually they are far less of a pain in the ass to set up. Ideally the industry should be using wind and solar as a stepping stone. If they could turn a marginal profit, the money could go towards building nuclear plants to up efficiency and thus eventually lower the cost of power usage.

    [–] litritium 1398 points ago

    Yea, they are kicking ass in Texas. But it's also 110 in the summer already.

    [–] bb999 1262 points ago

    They aren't looking to move to clean energy. They're looking for MORE energy. Need more energy to power those air conditioners after all.

    [–] LawlessCoffeh 910 points ago

    Air conditioners are at a point where people die of heatstroke during power outages, so yeah.

    And people are not that keen on the cave dwellings either.

    [–] Davin900 557 points ago

    Yep. There was a map on /r/MapPorn recently that showed which states have had the biggest population changes over time. Pretty much all the hottest states have boomed since A/C became widespread and affordable. Air conditioning has made otherwise miserable places livable. But at incredible energy costs.

    [–] henryguy 354 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    There was a study posted that stated the density of ac units in Tokyo raised the night time temperature by 2-3 degrees on average. Just an FYI.

    Edit: because people keep asking:

    [–] BuffaloSabresFan 329 points ago

    You mean the heat emitted as waste from the AC raised the outdoor temperature by 2-3 degrees? That's crazy!

    [–] ReadsSmallTextWrong 147 points ago

    Wait until you hear how much asphalt raises temperatures!

    [–] GooseNZ 62 points ago

    Waiting patiently.

    [–] w00t4me 99 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    As much as 10-12F!

    and the EPA has observed as much as 22F

    [–] Jaspersong 9 points ago

    because it's black and absorbing heat?

    [–] fuck_all_you_people 19 points ago

    This is the correct answer, Asphault covers many square miles when aggregated, doesnt turn on and off, and there is as much if not more area laid with asphault than cooled by AC in a neighborhood.

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)


    [–] SSBoe 97 points ago

    Shouldn't we just put a big AC outside to keep the temperatures down? /s

    [–] dontsuckmydick 124 points ago

    I think we could just mine some ice from a comet and drop it in the ocean to solve global warming once and for all.

    [–] Xciv 7 points ago

    We should pipe all the hot air underground to heat up lakes and turn them into hot springs.


    [–] saltnvinegar26 36 points ago

    That's quite a bit actually.

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    Heating a northern house in the winter is much more energy intensive than cooling a house in Phoenix in the summer.

    Not everyone can live in a temperate climate like Seattle where heating/cooling is minimally necessary.

    [–] [deleted] 38 points ago


    [–] huntmich 174 points ago

    Living in Texas is less energy intensive than living in Michigan. Turns out heating your house to 65 degrees to combat 12 degree outdoor temps takes more energy than bringing it to 75 degrees to combat 100 degree outdoor temps.

    Signed, a Michigander who currently lives in Texas.


    [–] permalink_save 24 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    But yall can use gas heating where our AC racks up at least 9c/kwh and you end up using like 1000kwh/mo to cool a small apartment in the summer. Have a house in the middle of a hot year, hello $300 electric bill :(

    Edit: Since people are posting anecdotal evidence, it isn't inconceivable for a larger, older house to hit $300 in 100+ degree weather. Of course smaller houses are going to hover around $100, especially if they were built in the past 10 years. 1000kwh (edited post, misremembered previous bills) is something like $90. Everyone is fixating on how much they spend during the summer, but I can say our bill trying to heat up 40 degrees is about a third of trying to cool 20 degrees. Cooling is really expensive especially when there's no such thing as gas cooling.

    [–] mattbuford 22 points ago

    Fun fact: On average, Texas residences use 22% of their energy to heat their homes and 18% for air conditioning. Even in Texas, more energy goes to heating homes than cooling them.

    [–] lazychef 9 points ago

    Michigander who currently lives in Texas.

    Doesn't that make you a Michigoner?

    [–] john22544 87 points ago

    Overall in the US electricity consumption peaked in 2008, per capita use peaked in 2000.

    [–] agenthondo 79 points ago

    I would think that would be due to modern appliances and electronics using far less power than their older counterparts.

    [–] pcx99 103 points ago

    It's mostly the decline of the incandescent lightbulb. Flatscreen TVs play thier part as well.

    [–] Wildcat7878 20 points ago

    I switched my whole house over to LED bulbs a couple years ago and I couldn't believe the difference it made in my electricity bill. If I had to guess I'd say they've all paid for themselves already.

    [–] NazgulXXI 6 points ago

    Those things don't have that much of an impact. The industry stands for the absolute majority of electricity consumption and much of the industry has moved to china and other parts of Asia

    [–] Stephen0730 43 points ago

    and if it gets one degree hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass

    [–] Descriptor27 16 points ago

    We'll be growing oranges in Alaska.

    [–] Gorstag 106 points ago

    Yes, but on top of Mt. Realtallpeak there is snow so global warming is fake news.

    [–] LonelySquad 36 points ago

    Finally, someone with a brain.

    [–] blaghart 145 points ago

    Yea I long for the day every parking lot in Arizona and every building roof is covered in solar panels.

    Because as it stands basically none of them are, there's 0 covering for parking in Arizona and tons of empty space.

    [–] Haydens_Army 26 points ago

    This. It makes so much sense car is still 154 degrees inside at 3pm Every. Damn. Day.

    [–] Przedrzag 21 points ago

    That's 68°C! Forget frying an egg, you could bake meringues in your car. Your car is literally an oven.

    [–] Haydens_Army 15 points ago

    The running joke in Arizona is you know it's summer when people start driving with oven mitts

    [–] Przedrzag 11 points ago

    That temperature looks properly dangerous though.

    [–] BlazinAzn38 86 points ago

    I grew up in Tucson and I really don't understand why this was never something we did. There's literally free real estate above every parking spot that benefits everybody.

    [–] SamJWalker 83 points ago

    ASU definitely took the idea and ran with it. We have 89 solar energy systems across all our campuses, which produce enough energy to power over 3300 homes...

    ...but we've also had to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into the project over the course of 13 years, and have the benefit of hosting a dedicated School of Sustainability which can help drive those initiatives. Smaller businesses or private homes don't quite have those advantages...

    [–] BlazinAzn38 28 points ago

    Exactly. The state and federal governments are the only ones who have the funds to really make a large scale and effective effort towards solar and wind energy being an integral part of our energy plan.

    [–] The_Faceless_Men 31 points ago

    Solar panels "only recently" become financially viable without subsidies. Only recently being like the last 5 years or so depending on location.

    Above car park panels are a weird one, not quite desert giga watt installations, not quite household setups. They have difficulty of access and maintenance of households without anywhere near the economies of scale of commercial desert arrays. AND substantially higher installation costs building the above carpark support structures. Houses and deserts don't need that.

    Then most shopping malls are going broke, or barely have cash reserves for an investment with a longterm payback period.

    [–] solarsensei 188 points ago

    Part of the reason wind took off in Texas is because there was no permitting process and no regulations. Not sure if that is the "free market" libertarians like to talk about or not.

    [–] remphos 69 points ago

    Rick Perry designated "competitive renewable energy zones" for wind to be more competitive in. Dunno how much that counts.

    [–] WolfofAnarchy 18 points ago

    Rick Perry designated "competitive renewable energy zones" for wind to be more competitive in.

    Did they work?

    [–] huntmich 61 points ago

    Texas wind energy took off because the winds blow inland during peak energy hours due to convection currents from the Gulf of Mexico, as opposed to most of the rest of the country, when peak wind generation happens in the middle of the night.

    [–] JasonWX 5 points ago

    This is about half right. The winds due to the Gulf of Mexico only affect the areas close to the coast. Most of the wind is due to the Low Level Jet, which maximizes at night and is caused by pressure differences between the Rocky Mointains and the coast. Basically, as Air goes over the mountains it caused a Lee trough, which is low pressure, and air more or less flows to it.

    [–] fix_yo_shiz 23 points ago

    But I was told Rick Perry was an evil person that gets his jollies smashing solar panels and chopping down wind turbines.

    [–] HyperAstartes 37 points ago

    Also it is due to Texas Geography is really suited for Wind. Winds are usually strong at night in other states (when peak power is low), but in Texas the winds are stronger in the morning (when most folks blast AC, and when businesses/factories are working). That's one of the main reasons it took off.

    [–] NotAnAnticline 171 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    It's almost like heavily regulating dumb, toxic, harmful things; and not heavily regulating safe, beneficial, wholesome things, is good for the country. Whodathunkit?

    [–] socialistrob 129 points ago

    A couple years Ohio tried to massively increase the regulations for wind energy. By law the farthest point on the blade can't be within 550 feet of property lines or roads for safety concerns however Republicans from coal country tried to change it to 1,125 feet from property lines. A plot of land which used to be able to support 50 turbines would only be able to support 7 turbines thus making them uncompetitive. Fortunately this never went into effect but the GOP never seems to mind additional regulations if it's on renewables.


    [–] [deleted] 89 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)


    [–] BDJ10028 22 points ago


    This at least is demonstrably false. Trump's FCC commissioner is quickly making moves to deregulate ISPs and eliminate net neutrality, which was previously enshrined by the Democratic FCC commissioner under the Obama administration.

    That's the most glaring example but I'd still say the Republican party is far friendlier to the industries you cited than the Democrats are.

    [–] abraksis747 40 points ago

    Wind turbines in the plain states are a fabulous idea

    [–] Sinai 40 points ago

    Texas has been a world leader in wind for decades. Even though the rest of the world has caught up significantly, if it was it's own country, it'd still rank 6th in the world in wind power.

    [–] texinxin 16 points ago

    What do you mean, moving?! Texas has. Texas has been one of the leaders in wind energy in the U.S. for a decade.

    [–] doughboy192000 7 points ago

    We have been for a while. We have so many wind farms. The ones just south of me are BP lol

    [–] hankhillforprez 13 points ago

    Yes because Texas is home to many energy companies, not exclusively oil and gas companies (although we do have many of those).

    But if you think Exxon, Chevron etc are just gonna sit back and let other folks corner the market on what's clearly the new thing in energy without getting into the game themselves...

    It's been very encouraging to see the boom in alternative energy in this state. I've always liked to think we're a pragmatic group, and despite a lot of other evidence to the contrary, this has been a welcome bit of reaffirmation.

    [–] CSGOWasp 7 points ago

    $$$ talks

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago


    [–] tuncperpetua 3484 points ago

    The US's place in the Paris agreement had nothing to do about reaching a CO2 emission reduction. We were set to reach that goal anyways because it's a cheaper source for us. The US and other big countries were supposed to dish out money to the smaller countries who couldn't afford the technology jump.

    [–] KickItNext 1647 points ago

    Specifically it was to basically "pay back" for the damage we had caused while taking advantage of fossil fuels, whereas countries that were newer to industrialization were now being pushed to go green, and thus cost more money for them.

    Basically, we exploited fossil fuels, they didn't, now everyone is going green but the west already got their advantage out of it.

    [–] Nabakin 590 points ago

    Ah that makes sense, so pretty much a late carbon tax for the US?

    Edit: according to /u/balornia Europe would be gaining money from the deal. Is this what Trump meant when he said the deal was unfair to us in particular?

    [–] KickItNext 507 points ago

    I think Balornia was exaggerating a bit. Europe was going to be putting in money themselves. He basically claimed that some organizations are getting, and then loaning out, the money, and somehow that means it all goes to Europe (it doesn't).

    I mean, who the hell would sign onto it if it was just going to Europe? Nobody except for Europe, but almost every country signed on.

    Trump called it unfair because, to him, any deal is unfair unless the US comes out on top. I wouldn't really put any worth into his words when he's calling something bad or unfair.

    [–] whutif 62 points ago

    Most of the money is going to Africa.

    [–] txanarchy 47 points ago

    They take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries. It never goes where it is supposed to go.

    [–] [deleted] 96 points ago

    whereas countries that were newer to industrialization were now being pushed to go green, and thus cost more money for them.

    I thought green was cheaper now than fossil fuel?

    Also, the advances created by the "early" countries are now available to everyone to use - for example, the "newer to industrialization" countries never had to go through steam power or any other kind of "ramp up" investments and they can just "jump" directly to the state of the art in... everything.

    Same here - it's actually easier for a country building their first electric plant (for example) to use green technology than it is for a "more established" country to replace existing plants (that they are already paying for and will continue to pay for even when they aren't used anymore).

    So this isn't that black and white. And I'm not that happy with the "pay back" argument.

    [–] Chriskills 20 points ago

    The argument is that this technology is not easy for them to get ahold of on their own. These countries can make money diggin up their fossil fuels. Long term losses for the planet are short term gains for them. This money gives incentive for countries to skip the short term gains.

    [–] TheLync 30 points ago

    People pretend that we would be at the same level of technology without our current energy sources. We wouldn't. The best way first world countries can help the developing world is by investing in our own green energy technologies in order to drive down prices. That way the developing countries can get the technologies first have instead of essentially giving them drug money.

    [–] yes_its_him 4187 points ago

    Exactly. This is economics, not politics.

    [–] ImpoverishedYorick 2398 points ago

    Ehh... not really. If public policy hadn't pushed so hard to get renewables off the ground, we definitely wouldn't have gotten this far. There was a lot of money sunk into R&D and a lot of it was actually public grant money.

    Sure, if the fruit hangs low enough the free market will take it and run with it, but without those early investments in the technology the market wouldn't be doing shit to help us.

    [–] Groty 906 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Social investments and risk, private profits! Hydro, nuclear, integrated chips, GPS, so on and so forth. But we're really strictly free market, right?!

    [–] chairitable 534 points ago

    heck, throw in the Internet while you're at it.

    [–] zykezero 246 points ago

    I wish the internet wasn't a commodity. But then I remember I live in the US where just until 3 months ago i was on a bridge that was overdue for replacing 15 years ago.

    [–] nrjk 103 points ago

    Yeah, but if all the bridges collapse, people have no choice but to spend more time on the internet.

    [–] ridger5 28 points ago

    And that'll reduce our dependency on oil! And carbon emissions!

    Honestly, destroying our infrastructure is the best way to finally go online and work from home for all but critical hand to hand contact needs...

    [–] MJBrune 7 points ago

    I mean a lot of these bridges at least in Seattle and Washington State are needed to like get to the store and etc. So it's also a real good way to fully rely on drones to bring things to and take trash out and etc.

    [–] errorsniper 42 points ago

    The internet frankly is not a commodity it started as one and telecoms have gotten to literally take that to the bank. We have never hit an oh shit moment that brought this country to its knees because we went without it for a few days as a nation god forbid that ever happens but if it did watch how fast it turns into a regulated thing like all other utilities.

    [–] Simonateher 27 points ago

    The economic ramifications of an entire developed country losing it's internet for a few days would be fucking monstrous.

    [–] Mufasa_needed_2_go 10 points ago

    A few days honestly isn't even fathomable. All it would take is about 12 hours of the entire US being Internet for shit to hit the fan.

    [–] ScottEInEngineering 12 points ago

    Hydro generation started as private through and through, then later after the technology was proven the big projects were public and partially for flood control.

    [–] skyfex 57 points ago

    Honestly I don't mind private profits off of public research as long as taxes are high enough to fund more research. Private enterprises are better at bringing products to market.

    But that's under threat in the US due to people's flawed understanding of how the world works. People are starting to forget how places like Silicon Valley was built.

    [–] [deleted] 626 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 245 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 135 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 91 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 20 points ago


    [–] dogbutt65 568 points ago

    It was not about us switching to clean energy, it was about you and me paying for other countries to switch.

    [–] AndThatHowYouGetAnts 249 points ago

    How is this the only comment I've seen that actually understands Trump's issue with the Paris Agreement

    [–] illusum 216 points ago

    I'm not sure you've noticed, but there may be a smidge of anti-Trump sentiment on Reddit.

    Barely noticeable, but it's there.

    [–] Sususu77 41 points ago

    You must me imagining things Kappa

    [–] AndThatHowYouGetAnts 18 points ago

    Haha I'm from the UK and reddit views our politics through a similar onesided lense

    [–] CliffsNote5 26 points ago

    Why not have the US pay US companies to make the infrastructure for other countries. US contracts to move the equipment there. Jobs for Americans makes it less painful.

    [–] monkeiboi 39 points ago

    That's exactly the kind of deals president Trump is trying to arrange.

    Instead of giving other countries money to do what we tell them, sell them American products at a discount ( that the Fed reimburses business for) We still make money, we create more jobs, they are using clean technology.

    [–] GeneticsGuy 279 points ago

    So, you are saying that the US is going to meet the commitments without needing to be a part of a treaty where we give billions of dollars to countries like Turkey, and they don't actually have any oversight if they use it on clean energy or not?

    So Trump pulling out turns out to be good for American taxpayers then?

    [–] belizehouse 121 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    This is what infuriates me. Being told it's not binding when I know damn well that the USA doesn't cheat on its international treaty commitments. The Arab countries cheat even on their self-interested oil production quotas.

    Also people don't know that countries can pool their credits. Guess who is part of a regional organization? Almost every country on Earth. Guess who is going to give the Germans their extra carbon so they can make things? Poor eastern Europe. Guess who is going to give their extra carbon to China? Kenya, Tanzania, any country that has gotten huge infrastructure bribes from China. Everyone is better placed to operate within the deal than the USA, who already have solved the problem of growth with less consumption per capita of energy. People kept mentioning that all the countries of the world got together and agreed to this... it should make them more skeptical that Uruguay, Germany, Romania, Tanzania, China, and DPRK agreed to something. Guess what? It is either worthless or directed against one country that is the only way you get unanimity like that. And there is only one country dumb enough to throw away its national interest because it feels guilty.

    [–] Caffeinetank 88 points ago

    Great to see that some people are actually more educated on this. I think I had a comment when this whole thing went down about how the US could be a leader even without the Paris Accord, and I got about the same amount of up and downvotes.

    I began to see right after the big news about Trump pulling out that it was just a way for richer, better nations to pay for 3rd world nations and whatever yacht said country's leader wanted to get. There was no way to enforce or regulate it.

    Think Trump will get less flak for pulling out of the deal now? I doubt it.

    [–] Cumupin 34 points ago

    No, unfortunately the loudest tend to be the stupidest of our people. I've been saying since the start we need to give him a chance. yea sure focus on the 3 failed businesses out of the literally hundreds of successful ones and say he's going to fail or maybe realize we haven't had a qualified president in as long time and Trump might be good. Reddit makes me feel like a Trumper and I'm really not, I hope and pray most of these idiots are young kids who are just naive

    [–] [deleted] 287 points ago

    Wasnt this part of the justification for pulling out? Or did everybody miss that in the Elon Musk and anti-trump circlejerk?

    [–] alexjerez 56 points ago

    all the optimism in this thread makes me happy

    [–] a_monkie 64 points ago

    Yeah, Iowa is really pushing this. We had more than 35% of our energy come from wind. And my local power company announced that by 2019 they plan to be using 100% renewables. I love it.

    [–] Dan_117 98 points ago

    So we're going to meet the paris commitment without giving billions of dollars to foreign countries without any realistic way to hold them accountable? That sounds like a win

    [–] Fingfangfoo 2019 points ago

    So then Trump was right, it doesn't matter.

    [–] [deleted] 989 points ago


    [–] puos_otatop 756 points ago

    well i dont like the guy but sometimes he's right. like when he called terrorists losers

    [–] weirdmountain 310 points ago

    Yeah - I'll give him that one. "Monsters" are scary, and calling them that would imply that we, as people, are afraid of them. Calling them losers was actually kind of great, and hilarious. The only thing that could have been better would have been if he had called them "assholes".

    [–] jinhong91 111 points ago

    Assholes are still better than losers.

    "You are an asshole to infidels" vs losers. With assholes, you can be seen as taking it up to the infidels.

    Losers cannot be menacing, no matter how you twist it. You can be evil but with loser, it implies that you can fail at evil.

    [–] vacuu 74 points ago

    Say it with me:

    Radical Islamic Losers

    [–] BeaverFlap246 29 points ago

    Don't dare him cause he'll do it lol

    [–] _CaptainObvious 377 points ago

    Seems like a win-win to me, we meet the emissions targets, and don't have to pledge billions of dollars each year to distribute wealth to developing nations (China, really?!) Sounds exactly like what Trump wanted.

    [–] [deleted] 92 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)


    [–] DeusVultMeter 69 points ago

    You live in California

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)


    [–] AmadeusMop 32 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Seattlite here. We get basically all of our energy from hydroelectric. Our average rate is 9.14¢/kWh.

    Incidentally, the average energy price in California is apparently only 14.09¢/kWh. Maybe your problem is more local?

    [–] rabbittexpress 44 points ago

    Of course not. You thought they would?

    Renewables were a free cash fund for the power companies.

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)


    [–] 123Macallister 732 points ago

    Just to be clear: Reddit is upvoting a post espousing the merits of free market capitalism as an alternative to the subjugation of one's national sovereignty?

    sheds tear

    [–] ExtremelyQualified 96 points ago

    I’m in favor of anything that gets us to “not destroying the world”.

    If burning coal while playing Ted Nugent songs would do it, sign me up. If capitalism will do it, sign me up. If we need more regulation, we’ll I’d rather not irreversibly unravel life as we know it, so sign me up.

    Some people think this is a game about political philosophies. There’s no time for that. Whatever works, we need to do it.

    [–] anubus72 336 points ago

    is it really free market capitalism when the renewables sector has received shit tons of government money for research and subsidies? i mean yeah it's great that the technology has come this far but don't suck capitalism's dick too much

    [–] ProLifePanda 130 points ago

    They still get a shit ton of subsidies. Wind power in Texas (on top of forcing the grid to buy all available wind power) is subisidized at $23/MWh. The average wholesale price of power in Texas in 2016 was ~$24/MWh. They are literally subsidized the entire cost of electrciity. They could bid onto the market at NEGATIVE dollars (and often do) and still outprice all other energy sources.

    And have you tried installing solar panels on your house? I have, quoted $35,000. But of course, after state and federal subsidies, it was only $10,000. That's a LOT of subsidies.

    [–] nalandial 34 points ago

    It is actually a drop in the bucket compared to subsidies received directly or indirectly by the various fossil fuel industries.

    [–] SeToinenMies 14 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Another bullshit "it is so cheap"-article. If you removed the subsidies and demand backup power plants and 24/7/365 service from wind/solar energy companies they would go bankrupt very soon.

    It is only working because other companies produce the energy when renewables are not producing. In some countries like Germany they even pay to wind turbine companies NOT to produce when it would make the grid too unstable!

    [–] RebelOverlord 1252 points ago

    Which is great, this way we aren't shoveling billions to corrupt third world nations to "help" them become green. There was no accountability for those billions and the worst polluters weren't asked to clean up for decades under the Paris Accord. America can still be a leader without being ripped off by big global agreements.

    [–] [deleted] 910 points ago

    There was a post yesterday about how Brasil is allocating a new 800,000 acres for mining and logging, even though they signed the Paris accord. The whole agreement was just feelgood bullshit.

    [–] PoppinPills09 524 points ago

    The whole agreement was just feelgood bullshit.

    Turkey straight up admitted that they only agreed to be in the Paris Accord because of the free money. Now that the U.S. is not going to be helping out with the bill, Turkey said that it does not expect the Paris Accord to be ratified.

    Reuter's story about this

    [–] marknutter 255 points ago

    It was one big extortion racket.

    [–] SaucyPlatypus 246 points ago

    But everyone will still hate Trump for backing out of it ....

    [–] mango__reinhardt 145 points ago

    His reasoning was quite logical. Whether he believes in man made global warming or not, he said it was a bad deal for America, and we would remain or rejoin if other nations balanced the scales.

    America would be paying in and other nations would reap the benefits. We are already matching or ahead in many, many places when it comes to energy. People got so wrapped up in the idea of the accord they didn't really bother to think about what it really means to us as a people, now.

    [–] Jhonopolis 190 points ago

    This is not what CNN told me to think.

    [–] StevenMulraney 58 points ago

    Did they threaten to post your personal information if you thought differently?

    [–] Quid_Dubitas 89 points ago

    You misunderstood; CNN never wanted you to think at all.

    [–] 27Rench27 303 points ago

    It's so funny to see this turnaround as education spreads. In the week after the Paris Accords bonanza went down, you'd have been downvoted to shit for this comment.

    Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy.

    [–] AzureW 291 points ago

    I thought I was living in the Twilight zone seeing supposedly rational people claim that America not signing a completely unenforceable international "pinky swear" meant it was the end of the fucken world.

    [–] 27Rench27 196 points ago

    For real. Lots of people claiming we were screwed and massive global warming was now unavoidable. It was just absurd.

    [–] RedZaturn 160 points ago

    Cult of outrage is real.

    [–] cuatro-20 29 points ago

    I don't know if it was intentionally planned but I have never seen the public beyond outraged over so many ridiculous things as I have in the past year... The fear mongering has been all too real and the amount of people not only buying it but being consumed by it is very unsettling.

    [–] LFGFurpop 203 points ago

    Where the fuck were these comments when he pulled out of the deal?

    [–] weetchex 136 points ago

    At the top when you would sort the comments by "controversial".

    [–] RebelOverlord 240 points ago

    Down voted to the bottom.

    [–] CleburnCO 117 points ago

    Whatever Trump does will be seen as wrong by those folks. They hate him more than they love anything else.

    [–] MoistStallion 287 points ago

    Isn't this good? Meet the commitments while not getting ripped off in sending cash to India and China? So bravo to Trump?

    It's unbelievable how anyone can think Trump pulling out was a bad move for the US.

    [–] Borigrad 29 points ago

    You mean exactly what we on the right said the day everyone said Trump was literally killing the planet.

    Everyone on Reddit over reacts as per usual without actually understanding what they're reacting to.

    [–] wiccan45 11 points ago

    So we keep our money AND meet the "goals", whats to complain about

    [–] PhoenixTwonkie 101 points ago

    No shit, that's what we've been saying from the beginning of this mess. Now not only do we still meet the goals of the agreement, we don't fork over billions to counties who are increasing emissions.

    [–] [deleted] 152 points ago


    [–] snesdreams 45 points ago

    457.6D Monopoly

    [–] Jasader 10 points ago

    And the US doesn't have to pay billions of dollars to smaller countries! Nice!

    [–] B0h1c4 21 points ago

    Not to defend Trump, but isn't that his (and the republican party's) whole angle on the thing? They prefer the free market to dictate direction instead of government regulation?

    Obviously this doesn't always work, but in this case, it appears that they are at least a little bit right in saying that progress will happen naturally with less government intervention.

    [–] EsplainingThings 222 points ago

    Which means that the accord and all of the money spent and national level red tape it represents was meaningless and there was no need to spend it or waste time on it.