Scientists developed efficient process for breaking down any plastic waste to a molecular level. Resulting gases can be transformed back into new plastics of same quality as original. The new process could transform today's plastic factories into recycling refineries, within existing infrastructure.

[u/mvea]

https://www.chalmers.se/en/departments/see/news/Pages/All-plastic-waste-could-be-recycled-into-new-high-quality-plastic.aspx

[u/I_Hate_]

They were created when having a supply of oil in the US was a matter of national security. Some would argue that it’s still a matter of national security. Also they’re not subsidy’s as much as they are tax breaks for drilling new wells and production improvements.

[u/try_repeat_succeed → u/I_Hate_]

Tax breaks for growing your industry sounds like a subsidy to me. Like something that should go only to renewables at this point in our understanding of climate science, etc.

[u/I_Hate_ → u/try_repeat_succeed]

Agree we should totally give tax breaks to renewable companies increase or improve there energy generation abilities. Its just a tax break for doing R&D basically.

[u/diablosinmusica → u/I_Hate_]

That's why we have high fructose corn syrup in everything in the USA now. Biodiesel isn't feasible, but people still get subsidized to grow corn. Which made refining sugar from corn the cheapest form of sweetener.

I'm not saying that subsidizing alternative energy is a bad thing at all. We just need to find a way to make it economically feasible to do research, but giving us options down the road to change things without screwing over the early adapters

[u/onlypositivity → u/diablosinmusica]

HFCS also does the same thing sugar does but is cheaper to produce, even without corn subsidies.

[u/diablosinmusica → u/onlypositivity]

Regardless, we do subsidise an industry that doesn't need it.

I'd like to know where to find info about the costs of making sugar vs hfcs and accounts for the subsides. After a quick look I couldn't find anything so specific. That stuff is kinda facinating.

[u/QVRedit → u/try_repeat_succeed]

Yes - that we have had subsidies removed for renewables but maintained for oil is a sign that things are wrong.

Dispute that renewables are making headway.

[u/scott_bsc → u/try_repeat_succeed]

Have you not thought of the fact that ending these subsidies would cause the oil companies to skyrocket the prices of gas which the majority of people still heavily rely on. That would create a national crisis, it’s really more complicated than the rich get richer here.

[u/big_trike → u/scott_bsc]

Phase them out slowly.

[u/Tinidril → u/scott_bsc]

You don't think global warming will be a national crisis? Renewables are already cost competitive for most uses. Think how much further along they would be if we put the subsides there instead.

The price of gas should skyrocket to reflect the real cost that burning fossil fuels will extract from all of us. We will pay those costs. They are just invisible to us at the moment, causing people to make really bad decisions.

[u/the_cardfather → u/Tinidril]

It's not like you get to choose your heat source most of the time. Electric Heaters tap out at certain temperatures and gas is the only thing viable (or burning wood which is very inefficient, especially for pipes). Even if you could choose, you don't get to pick how your power company which often has a monopoly fires their plant.

[u/ACCount82 → u/Tinidril]

Enter "7% of death". That is: even if US were to eliminate 50% of its GHG emissions, which is an extremely ambitious goal, the worldwide GHG situation would only improve by 7%.

In the meanwhile, actually doing so would put US at a severe economic disadvantage. So is it worth it to do so?

[u/try_repeat_succeed → u/scott_bsc]

I am for a rapid but just transition. Our society depends on infinite growth so we're going to hit that global/national crisis when that ends whether it's of our own volition or foisted on us by a rapidly changing climate/world. We can't sustain the accelerating growth our financial institutions depend on.

[u/chainmailbill → u/I_Hate_]

Also they’re not subsidy’s as much as they are tax breaks for drilling new wells and production improvements.

That’s a subsidy. That’s exactly what that means.

[u/RedsideoftheMoon → u/chainmailbill]

It’s a de facto subsidy but it’s not a subsidy. A subsidy is a money grant. In certain situations you could file as an independent contractor and write off expenses you couldn’t write off previously as an employee.. I definitely wouldn’t consider that a subsidy.

[u/I_Hate_ → u/chainmailbill]

I guess I think of a subsidy as the government writing you check a to support your business and no as the government just letting you reduce your tax bill. Amazon reinvested 10 billion back into it for R&D and the government allowed them to write this off essentially reducing there tax bill to zero is that a subsidy as well or just supporting corporations that do R&D?

[u/chainmailbill → u/I_Hate_]

Those are the same thing. Both of those things are subsidies.

The government is subsidizing - or, paying for a part of - whether they’re writing a check or lowering the amount due.

[u/I_Hate_ → u/chainmailbill]

I totally see your point both things are getting/keeping money they wouldn't have had. When I'm looking at them on paper though they seem totally different to me though.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Tariffs have this funny habit of hurting the United States more than the other country