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.

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I believe both exiting Iraq and Afghanistan qualify.

        Maybe not exactly what you’re getting at though

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year 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.