jeffwulf
jeffwulf t1_j7m4mn7 wrote
Reply to comment by DENelson83 in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992
US carbon emissions, measured by both consumption and production, peaked in 2005 and have been trending downwards since and are 20% lower than their peak.
jeffwulf t1_j7m10ud wrote
Reply to comment by DENelson83 in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992
Carbon trends in different economies.
jeffwulf t1_j7m0bac wrote
Reply to comment by DENelson83 in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992
Evidence suggests exactly the opposite.
jeffwulf t1_j7lpowi wrote
Reply to comment by DENelson83 in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992
Based on trends in the countries that are phasing out coal versus building it out rapidly, exactly the opposite.
jeffwulf t1_j7lo4bb wrote
Reply to comment by KetaCuck in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992
In the US we've been rapidly phasing out coal already with most of the decline being replaced by renewables.
jeffwulf t1_j7lmuvs wrote
Reply to comment by chesterbennediction in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992
Isn't feasible to shut them all down yet. We've set the base for doing it, we just need to keep building on it.
jeffwulf t1_j4r7jhh wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in New apartment buildings in low-income areas lead to lower rents in nearby housing units. This runs contrary to popular claims that new market-rate housing causes an uptick in rents and leads to the displacement of low-income people. by smurfyjenkins
Depends on how big an entire area is. It would have to be pretty sizable before it's meaningful.
There's like 30,000,000 millionaires in the US alone.
jeffwulf t1_j4r3lk9 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in New apartment buildings in low-income areas lead to lower rents in nearby housing units. This runs contrary to popular claims that new market-rate housing causes an uptick in rents and leads to the displacement of low-income people. by smurfyjenkins
They own about 300k houses country wide versus housing stock over 100 million. They don't meaningfully effect prices and have no meaningful market power. However, we do know from their shareholder reports that the reason they're investing in single family homes is because they think that local homeowners have successfully put in policies that prevent new housing from being built so their profits will be protected and the largest risk to their portfolio is new housing supply being built.
​
Your article even says as much.
>
After all, investors are driven to rental-family homes because of existing demand and limited supply, while housing cost burdens among low-income people have been rising for decades.
“Private equity firms and other institutional investors benefit from tight housing supply, but they did not create the problem. Local governments across the U.S. have adopted policies that make it difficult to build more homes where people want to live,” Schuetz said. “Zoning rules that limit the construction of small, moderately priced homes are politically popular with existing homeowners and local elected officials.”
jeffwulf t1_j4qupjg wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in New apartment buildings in low-income areas lead to lower rents in nearby housing units. This runs contrary to popular claims that new market-rate housing causes an uptick in rents and leads to the displacement of low-income people. by smurfyjenkins
Most investors are mom and pop landlords. Institutional investors own less than 1% of housing.
jeffwulf t1_j4qrehf wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in New apartment buildings in low-income areas lead to lower rents in nearby housing units. This runs contrary to popular claims that new market-rate housing causes an uptick in rents and leads to the displacement of low-income people. by smurfyjenkins
It only matters who provides the supply if it's all highly concentrated in a single provider.
jeffwulf t1_j4pd7mp wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in New apartment buildings in low-income areas lead to lower rents in nearby housing units. This runs contrary to popular claims that new market-rate housing causes an uptick in rents and leads to the displacement of low-income people. by smurfyjenkins
It's really about the supply.
jeffwulf t1_j7mrcvg wrote
Reply to comment by DENelson83 in Current climate policies lead the world to less than a 5 percent likelihood of phasing out coal by mid-century ,new study shows by 9273629397759992
Yeah, Communist China is heavily investing in coal and it's state owned coal company is the single largest producer of fossil fuel emissions and is a good foil to what's happening in capitalist countries.