this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
400 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4186 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Mostly by corporate subsidies for things they were either already doing or wanting to do.

This statement is, as far as I can tell, simply made up. Here's a quantitative comparison of what they were already doing or wanting to do, versus the plan after the climate bill.

Simply removing government subsidies from oil would be very nearly sufficient to that end, too.

Good luck with that. Pop quiz: Which industry gives a fuck of a lot of money to congress? Follow-up question, in order for something that's a good idea to become law, does it have to (a) go through congress or (b) nothing further, being president means you get everything you want with no other branch of government involved?

It's common knowledge that the climate bill is not nearly enough action. But, it's also clear to me looking at it that (a) it was extremely impressive to be able to get that amount of climate improvement through the current US government to become law, and (b) giving Biden shit for it because the rest of government blocked him from doing more, seems almost guaranteed to weaken his ability (or anyone else's) to do more with a second term.

This whole mythology that "well we have to give Biden a hard time over the climate, because he's already attempting to do a lot but more action is needed, and if Trump wins and reverses every small bit of progress anyone's been able to make then that's just the price of environmental success" is, to me, not very sensible. It's like shooting allied soldiers to help win World War 2. It's like not bringing a parachute because you're really really sure you don't want your plane to crash. It doesn't make any fucking sense.

he -personally- approved the willow project permits

Here's a good summary of why he might have done that.

To me, "does he care about the climate?" boils down to, what has he done for the climate, and the best way to measure that is with the emissions impacts of his actions.

Doing more and blocking more development projects on top of that sounds like a great idea, yes.

The vast majority of which should have been forgiven decades ago, and wasn’t because of scammy loan services.

Glad we're in agreement that it's good to have an American president who's finally doing good things instead of just neoliberal horror! Yes, it's nice. I would like to see more of these things happen.