Biden says global warming topping 1.5 degrees in the next 10 to 20 years is scarier than nuclear war
Biden says global warming topping 1.5 degrees in the next 10 to 20 years is scarier than nuclear war
In his comments in Hanoi, Biden talked about the importance of wealthier nations supporting less wealthy nations prepare and adapt to climate change.
What Biden has done is to cut the issuance of drilling leases to the minimum required by law, pass the Inflation Reduction Act, enact a regulation to force vehicle electrification, and similarly force fossil fuels out of most power plants.
What Biden has not done: stop issuing drilling permits or impose export restrictions on fossil fuels. The former has some serious limits because of how the courts treat the right to drill as a property right once you hold a drilling lease, and the latter is simply untested.
You're viewing a single thread.
Biden literally just cancelled oil and gas leases less than a week ago. I agree he hasn't done enough, but there is some validity to the old statement that perfection is often the enemy of good.
That's stopping something trump tried to do from happening...
It's good, but we need to do a hell of a lot more than just sometimes stop things from getting worse.
That's pretty much the entire reason people don't like moderates. Why wait decades to fix something instead of fixing stuff now?
The graph from OPs link shows a significant drop off under Obama, a steep rise under trump, and then another drop off under Biden. Kind of follows the Dem-Rep seesaw I've been experience for decades. It's depressing that the Dems can't do more, but the reality is they are also funded by the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry, Dems can barely hold onto majorities as it is, and voters vote for these morally weak candidates over and over. I'm really at a fuck-this-place, and fuck-all-these-people stage. The only thing I really regret is bringing a kid into this world. Just very selfish and narcissistic on my behalf.
I’m really at a fuck-this-place, and fuck-all-these-people stage. The only thing I really regret is bringing a kid into this world. Just very selfish and narcissistic on my behalf.
Can't say I've ever related to a statement this hard for a while. It's all just a shitshow and we seem to be at the "fuck it, let's ramp this up to 11" stage of self-extermination.
It’s all just a shitshow and we seem to be at the “fuck it, let’s ramp this up to 11” stage of self-extermination.
meanwhile a third of the people are saying "oh we've got time, we just have to convince the people to come together and unify"
and another third that's saying "FUCK YOU I HAVE FIREARMS AND WILL ROLL COAL AS MUCH AS I WANT I WILL LITERALLY SPEW OIL! I AM ANGRY ALL THE TIME BECAUSE OF THE PAINT CHIPS AND LEADED FUEL EXPOSURE OF MY YOUTH AND ZERO HEALTHCARE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WILL PUNISH EACH AND EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING WITH MY EFFLUENCE."
We're stuck between kumbaya unity types and petrofascists meanwhile the world is COOKING.
Meanwhile the Shell, Exxon & BP execs are just happy no one's coming after them yet.
meanwhile a third of the people are saying "oh we've got time, we just have to convince the people to come together and unify"
We already have critical mass in the US. We are the elephant leashed with a string:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32412-y
We just need to start acting and ensuring our decision makers know that the majority want them to act too if they value getting relected.
no we don't. we have half the population supporting a party that literally doesn't see a climate crisis and wants to keep pumping more oil.
Tell me how to get sane legislation passed in a two party system when half literally don't see any problem at all.
In the US, climate policy has more support than people believe:
not enough to pass meaningful legislation.
From the article:
"While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to only be between 37–43% on average."
I'd say 2/3 is more than enough. It doesn't all have to be at the national level. City govs could rezone to reduce car usage. State govs could give tax breaks for employees that telework.
and we seem to be at the “fuck it, let’s ramp this up to 11” stage of self-extermination.
We do?
Here in the United States the amount of electricity generated by coal burning has dropped by 50% in the last 20 years and in that same time frame renewable energy has more than doubled. Greenhouse Gas emissions per capita were lower in 2020 than they were in 2000 and we now generate more energy from renewables than we do from coal.
https://usafacts.org/topics/energy/
We can argue that the changeover to renewables isn't happening fast enough but "fuck it, let’s ramp this up to 11" isn't happening at all, it's actually quite the opposite.
one part of the population is trying desperately to change the course, the other is rolling coal, opening new wells, spewing gigatons of methane from their fracking operations and standing around with their thumbs up their asses wondering why it's so damned hot now that a dem is in office.
the people trying to change the course won't make a difference once the bus has gone off the cliffside mate.
Why wait decades to fix something instead of fixing stuff now?
The United States is not a Command Economy and The President is not a Dictator. The US via private enterprise is dumping ever larger sums into renewable energy production and is definitely making progress. It's not happening fast enough but it IS happening.
Moderates when something happens:
We did this!
Moderates when nothing happens:
Don't you know how the government works? We can't do anything
No one is demanding he succeed, we're just asking that they fucking try.
Bring stuff up for a vote and let people who see how their reps represent them.
The Republicans control the House of Representatives. Nothing can happen right now in the direction that we need as a result because zero of them will vote for it.
The Inflation Reduction Act barely passed with Vice President Kamala Harris as a tiebreaking vote in the Senate because it was structured to fit within the budget reconciliation rules and therefore not subject to filibuster.
It's going to take a lot more Democrats in both the House and Senate before a moderate President can pass climate legislation. Even then, it'll need to survive a court that's hostile to the idea.
That’s really the fundamental issue, isn’t it? There is absolutely no democratic processes on the federal level. We get to pull a lever once every two years, and that is supposed to be a meaningful democratic participatory process.
There's a lot you can do besides voting.
Candidates need volunteers and money. There is organizing to do. Papers which need letters to the editor, and state and federal officials who need to hear from you.
I don’t think that organizing within a private corporate party apparatus counts as participating in the democratic process more generally. Especially one that has admitted it has no obligation to follow its own rules. There needs to be a direct democratic process on a federal level. The majority of the population, regardless of party affiliation, support measures such as universal healthcare, but our process doesn’t empower collective change, rather it empowers minority interests over the majority, as evidenced by the legislation pushed and policy positions held by the federal government. Even good representatives can’t do anything because they’re hamstrung by an inherently partisan political process. Let the people speak. Where they are allowed to speak, we have seen big changes, (legalization of cannabis, ending of qualified immunity, bail reform, etc), but where the only avenue for change is through elected office, we have stagnated for decades behind the rest of the developed world.
Organizing within the system is exactly how we've gotten as much as we have.
The alternative is to roll the dice with revolution, and that's about as likely to end up in a much worse place than we'd otherwise get. That's really only a rational choice when you don't have other avenues to change policy.
I suppose that depends on what era you’re referring to. It wasn’t working within the system that won the right to unionize, it was work outside the system that provided the necessary pressure to coerce concessions out of the government.
Nope, they could force it to a floor vote then contrast the dem's votes to the rethuglican vote then compare the lobbying $ that goes to each.
Put it to a vote then shame them. THE WORLD IS COOKING.
They can't actually force a floor vote in the House because the Speaker there controls the schedule.
No one is demanding he succeed, we’re just asking that they fucking try.
It’s politically unpopular to do what need to be done. Moderate policies are popular policies. And moderate policies will move left the more people vote and the more old gens die.
It’s politically unpopular to do what need to be done
No, a majority of voters want action on climate change, unfortunately a majority of elected representatives don't, because most get fossil fuels donations to their campaigns.
Moderate policies are popular policies.
Not as popular as progressive policies...
That's kind of the whole point of American neoliberalism... alienate the left because "what are they going to do, vote R?"
Then move slightly to the right in a perpetual misguided attempt to steal the conservatives from republicans.
We've been trying that for 30 years now. The only result has been instead of slow progress, we take 10 steps back when republicans are in control, and moderates demand we worship them on the rare occasions we take five steps forward.
It's not working, and that should be pretty obvious to anyone who knows recent American history.
Fighting extremism with moderation has never worked tho, that should be obvious to everyone.
They want action without any downside. Not taxes. No economic hardship. Just like everyone wants $2 worth of governance for $.50. When polled on individual policies most people are very progressive. When it comes time to pay for all of it they get very picky, and vote for candidates that will do nothing. And that’s the popular outcome currently. It’s the mean of opinion. We aren’t as progressive as we would like to be.
Trump facilitated those particular leases.
I think people dislike moderates because they can be more realistic. Cars are one of the biggest contributors to GHG in the US. Most people literally need to drive cars due to how our transportation infrastructure is built. It will upwards of a decade to undo because it will require a lot of large construction projects. Those take time.
Change requires support of the electorate or the current officials will get replaced. This is why people like Koch and Murdoch invest so heavily in propaganda.
Militarily, the only real threat to the US by a foreign invasion is nukes. Our naval and air power is on a whole other level. China has way too much control of manufacturing, so going after the other problem child results in a global economic catastrophe.
The BEST thing anyone can do is winning hearts and minds of US citizens to get them on board with what needs to be done. More moderate action is an easier sell. Once hedonic adaptation kicks in and people adjust to the new normal, we can move further. We are really close to being there. Look at my post history and read the nature article.
I think people dislike moderates because they can be more realistic
No, we dislike them because they don't understand negotiation on a fundamental level, or anything about the republican party.
Republicans rush full steam towards their goals with no hesitation or thoughts for consequences.
So to stop them, compromising 50% before you get to the table doesn't accomplish a single thing. We gave them Mitt Romenys healthcare plan after making it more conservative and Republicans called it communism. It doesn't matter what we start out with, so we might as well start out with more than we want. It's like walking into a car dealership and saying the most you'll pay is 10% over asking price and negotiating from there.
Children understand this point when asking for candy.
I didn't read the rest of your comment, because you started out with something so ridiculous I figured the rest wouldn't be any better. And if you dont understand that first point, there's zero reason to talk about anything else till you do.
I didn't say anything about negotiating with Republicans. I'm not talking about negotiating at all. I'm talking more about selling ideas and change to the population.
I didn't read the rest of your comment, because you started out with something so ridiculous
I don't want to interact with you if you have that kind of attitude. Bye!
I don’t want to interact with you if you have that kind of attitude. Bye
Good thing you replied to tell me you don't want to reply...
Otherwise how would I ever have figured that out?
Our left wing party is still opening new coal and gas mines so be thankful for whatever progress you get I say.
perfection is often the enemy of good.
I whole heartedly agree. Things don't change overnight. We can't rebuild hundreds of cities to eliminate car dependency by next Wednesday.
What we can change rapidly is behavior. It isn't hard to convince someone to eat less beef when alternatives are cheaper. It isn't hard to convince people that buying one nice 30 dollar shirt that looks better, feels better, and lasts for many years is cheaper than 2 20 dollar shirts that fade and unravel at the seems in a year.
We can't expect everyone to junk their canyoneros tomorrow. We can convince them to harass city officials into put bollards up on the bike lanes because more bikes is less traffic that they have to sit in.
I'm not sure who would downvote your comment. All sensible approaches to improving the state of things.
Seriously he couldn't pass the Build Back Better plan but then the Inflation Reduction Act provides a potentially unlimited amount of incentives/subsidies for green energy.
Painting him as "just a moderate" on this issue is some centrist level bullshit, OP. He's clearly giving oil, gas, and military convenient wins so they don't ruin the world before the next US election. Yes, the oil barons have more political power than a sifnificant amount of voters.
Even by your linked article's admission, that was kind of inconsequential:
The 2017 GOP tax bill opened a small part of the pristine wildlife refuge for drilling, a measure championed by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican. But it was never developed or drilled – or came close to doing so. Haaland suspended the leases in June 2021, and some major oil companies, including Chevron, canceled their leases in the area the following year.
However, the 2017 tax law mandates leasing in ANWR, meaning the Biden administration will have to launch a new leasing process and hold another lease sale by the end of 2024, albeit likely with tighter environmental provisions.
So the companies had the permits for 4 years and never did anything with them, to the point where Chevron cancelled their own leases. And the leases will be auctioned off again next year.
Meanwhile the Biden administration is granting applications for permits to drill on public and trial lands at a pace faster than the Trump administration at the same point. From the start of their administrations through March 27, Biden approved 7,118 permits and Trump 7,051, The Washington Post reported.
About the permit approvals, the Bureau of Land Management has said the bureau has taken a "balanced approach to energy development and management of our nation’s public lands."
So yeah, while I think Biden is the most progressive president since FDR, his record on oil drilling isn't so great.
Edit: fix the order of some quotes.