354

U.S. Pledge To Triple Global Nuclear Energy By 2050 (www.huffpost.com)

submitted 10 months ago by lntl@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

132 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When I first read the titile, I thought that the US is going to have to build A LOT to triple global production. Then it occured to me that the author means the US is pledging to make deals and agreements which enable other countries to build their own. Sometimes I think the US thinks too much of itself and that's also very much part of American branding.

Where are my renewable bros at? Tell me this is bad.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 17 points 10 months ago

Bill Clinton used to do this. Set goals and agreements that were like 30 years away. He did this alot. This is not new and is basically a way to look like you are doing something, but you and your administration would be long gone before there can be any accountability.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 21 points 10 months ago

Tbf, long term goals are a good thing. National planning having a lifespan of 4-8 years is fucking insane, and probably contributes non-trivial to federal expenditures and waste. We'd be better off if we could follow long term goals. But you're right, though, it was performative planning by and large.

[-] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

Actual genuine question here. Has any US administration made a decades long plan like this, announced it to the public, and then a future administration saw said plan through to fruition?

[-] lntl@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I believe both exiting Iraq and Afghanistan qualify.

Maybe not exactly what you're getting at though

[-] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

That qualifies.Thanks you!

[-] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Yes.

Unfortunately, said plan was dismantling the railroads in favor of the Interstate Highway System.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Nope.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -4 points 10 months ago

Maybe the panama canal? The Hoover Dam? But yea not much, the US hasn't done large projects like that since private interests figured out they could milk huge sums of money by contracting and never delivering anything.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

As a general fuck-up in life I’ve found it far more valuable to make promises on a timeframe I can manage, even if they’re really tiny, than to make big promises.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Long term goals? Sure. Long term deadlines? No. We're either not going to meet them and nobody is going to be held accountable. Or we are going to meet them and we could've done better.

You don't trust a person or business to keep their promise 30 years from now, why would you trust the US government?