8
‘We Needed More Time’: As Biden Leaves Office, His Climate Legacy Remains Incomplete
(insideclimatenews.org)
That's the liberal slogan "we needed more time"
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
8 points (75.0% liked)
Politics
402 readers
127 users here now
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
I knew this post would attract lazy criticisms reaffirming well-worn prejudices.
Biden spent $700 billion on climate change, after raising corporate taxes significantly to fund his climate policies. The article talks about that, as well as the facts of some of his failures. But regardless of that, what have you done that's better?
Laying the expectation of single individuals affecting climate change is absurd. Climate change needs to be addressed nationally to make any kind of impact. Biden didn't spend his personal money, he was the head of government signing government legislation to allocate government funds. You've basically asked "if you cared about climate so much, why aren't you doing more than 1000s of people?"
My point wasn't that one single Lemmy poster needs to do more than the entire federal government. My point was that Biden, as a single individual, is responsible for the largest amount of action on climate change that the US has ever undertaken, by about a factor of 10.
Way more is needed, but it's a good start. My point was that looking at that situation and lobbing some kind of lazy ho-hum criticism at the person responsible for the government suddenly just now taking the problem seriously and taking big steps to address it, being disappointed in their job performance that it took more than 4 years to make a dent in a problem whose scale and entrenched-ness is literally unimaginable on a human scale, is a bunch of crap. And so, I asked the person who's disappointed that Biden needed more time: Well, what have you done to address the problem, over the last four years?
Donated? Protested? Volunteered? Sent letters to congress? Something?
: Well, what have you done to address the problem, over the last four years?
Donated? Protested? Volunteered? Sent letters to congress? Something?
I'm fuggen begging you to stop using this bad faith and absolutely valueless and thoughtless argument, today.
Like, if you can't or won't, at least give us an attempt of a defense of why you think it is useful? Then we could be entertained at least
Cuz really. Really. that's some triflin' ass shit, some kiddie level logic youre employin OP.
If only I'd written more than those two lines, and my main point was something different.
I do absolutely think that it's up to the individual to positively impact the climate. Specifically, it's up to the individual to push their government to enact real policies for stopping the catastrophe. Because that is the only realistic solution I see, and the governments are for damn sure not going to figure it out on their own.
Bud, I told you to stop or defend your argument, not repeat yourself. Understand? We are going to talk about that logical fallacy of yours, because it's a problem you need to address and I'm here to help you thru it. That's the only reason imma engage with you, feel me? I can just block ya if it's too much, it ain't that deep
Let's try an experiment: Can you summarize for me what my argument is, specifically why and how I am saying individual action is important, and what additional elements I added to it after you asked? You don't have to agree with it, I'm just curious if you can summarize what I've said so far, without adding enough spin to it to turn it back into your argument.
Like I said, the main thrust of what I was saying was something different, but I'm happy to defend that little part of it if you want to have that conversation.
I'm so very glad you asked.
Your argument is, broadly:
"Biden worked hard to fix the climate. Maybe not hard enough for many people, but hard. He was stymied by many things, one of which was time. People are too critical of him when they should read more about the impact of the things he did do, and they should take a hard look at what they've done to help fix an existential problem that could kill us all."
The opinion you have, "that Biden has done enough to be defended" is fine. I disagree with it but that's the Internet, w/e.
Problem: you are using the fact "this is an existential problem, we must all fix this problem or die" as a defense of Biden. You can't do this, because the two things are not the same topic. Doing what you have done is called a logical fallacy, specifically "whataboutism".
Now, while adding nothing but more hot air, you wish to appear as if you know a lot while offering nothing of substance. Maybe you're also hoping to move away from the fallacy, because admitting youre wrong, ever amounts to a deadly ego blow.
I've dealt with a million peeps just like this. If you're following their lead I suppose your next move is to say "that's not my argument at all, it's actually [another bad argument]". That would be very boring, so dont do that please.
Instead, commit to stop using bad logic to defend your points. Doing so can make good points into bad ones. Refresh your knowledge on logical fallacies and endeavor to avoid them
Your argument is, broadly:
“Biden worked hard to fix the climate. Maybe not hard enough for many people, but hard. He was stymied by many things, one of which was time. People are too critical of him when they should read more about the impact of the things he did do, and they should take a hard look at what they’ve done to help fix an existential problem that could kill us all.”
Absolutely correct, in the main thrust.
Problem: you are using the fact “this is an existential problem, we must all fix this problem or die” as a defense of Biden.
Not at all. I'm using the fact that he took massive action on the problem, about 10 times more than any other US politician ever, as a defense of Biden. You are completely correct that the scale of the problem has no bearing at all on whether Biden did anything productive with it.
Now, while adding nothing but more hot air, you wish to appear as if you know a lot while offering nothing of substance.
So, this is one of the key parts that you missed. I asked about it before: What additional things did I add, after you asked me to defend?
Actually, I think by focusing on a pretty correct summary of what I said about Biden, and skimping on summarizing what I was saying about individual action on the climate, you set yourself up to miss that part of it. So, what specifically was my argument about individual action? It was incomplete, and what you said initially as a criticism in general of blaming the climate on individuals, I generally agree with. What did I clarify after your first message?
Maybe you’re also hoping to move away from the fallacy, because admitting youre wrong, ever amounts to a deadly ego blow.
I’ve dealt with a million peeps just like this. If you’re following their lead I suppose your next move is to say “that’s not my argument at all, it’s actually [another bad argument]”. That would be very boring, so dont do that please.
I can send you a few links to recent comments where I said something wrong, someone corrected me, and then I said, "Oh, you're right, I stand corrected." You're trying to ad hominem, but even as far as the hominem, you're not correct.
Yeah, looks like you're that type lol...
Ok, so here's what i will do, since you asked me to look at your comments.
Instead of trollin thru old comments, i will in a week or so look at your new ones to see if i had any impact. My hope is a narrow improvement, an avoidance of this specific fallacy. If you wish me sad, continue as you were. If your wish is to be better, then you can start right now. We won't talk again.
See ya
Okay, wait then, with bated breath, hoping, hoping that your good-natured efforts to help me improve will not be in vain. I hope, along with you, that your striving will not be in vain.
I think you missed their point. This is the DNC response to everything. "We did stuff, but nowhere near where it could have been and certainly didn't solve the problem. Welp here's to trying to do things in 2 years."
I fully understood the lazy cliche being applied in this case. If I hadn't understood it, I wouldn't have taken time to address it directly and point out some flaws in its application here. Thanks for trying to talk down to me about it, and echoing the cliche again, instead of addressing anything I said.
Did you do anything? Protest, letters to congress, anything like that?
I was busy organizing the largest union in my industry.
Sounds good. Here's some of what the CWA had to say about the NLRB under Biden:
https://cwa-union.org/news/releases/cwa-statement-nlrb-funding-amid-increase-worker-organizing
I'd put that in the same category as US climate policy. It's been fucked for so long that it's easy to get cynical about any given level of improvement. Instead, what the CWA is doing is the right answer: Acknowledge the success while still pushing hard for more. Imagine if that press release had said, instead, "typical liberal Biden, NLRB is still fucked as it always is, they always need more time I guess."
I doubt you picked CWA by coincidence, but in case you did, I'm a member. I don't consider that the same thing at all, because just as CWA says the administration didn't do enough to keep the election process quick enough with current funding. On top of that, it's not the government or CWA forming these unions, it's the workers. We celebrate our victories in private, and then fight like hell for more in public. I do the same thing with climate change.
I doubt you picked CWA by coincidence
I did not.
On top of that, it’s not the government or CWA forming these unions, it’s the workers.
True that. It takes many different parties, all fighting, for anything good to happen. And actually, I'm not convinced that anything "the government" does can really help in any lasting sense. I think the victory has to be won by the workers themselves, and then codified by the government if anything. What we're seeing now with our horrifying governmental system is the result when too many of the working people delegate that fight to an official class of politicians who work everything out for them, and then supposedly hand it to them as a done deal. The result isn't good.
But that said, if you want to have a view of what happens when the workers are forming those unions and fighting that fight without having the NLRB also fighting in their corner, wait for the next few years, and see how the CWA does for itself. I actually think the scope of the problems with Trump will be so existentially massive that little issues like your employment and your union may start to seem trivial. But, also, your union will suffer a lot without the help the NLRB has been giving it.
We celebrate our victories in private, and then fight like hell for more in public.
Sounds like you denigrate the people who helped your victories, in public. At least as far as climate. If you're also celebrating them in private, then great, I guess, but I think fighting for more would be better than turning your guns on your allies in public.
We're wandering away from the point of the discussion, but I can tell you with certainty that CWA isn't going to slow down their efforts. My union has existed since before the NLRB, we'll just have to stand on our own again. My local is leading the charge with class struggle unionism in CWA, and that sure as hell won't stop with Trump's admin.
Biden did some good things for climate, but it wasn't enough. I don't think it even makes up for 2024 being the record breaking year of most crude oil produced. My allies are in my class, not in government. We can't settle and let them think they did good when we needed far more than they gave.
I can tell you with certainty that CWA isn’t going to slow down their efforts
Oh, I'm sure not. I was just saying that you will slow down your successes, now with explicit enemies in government instead of allies.
Biden did some good things for climate, but it wasn’t enough.
Not even close, no. He did about as much as one president could realistically do in our death-cult of a government, but we need five more terms of that kind of action, and we needed it to start 20 years ago when there was still time.
We can’t settle and let them think they did good
If anything I was saying was sounding like I thought our government is doing good on climate change, or that it's time to relax, that was not at all what I was saying.
first term is always right the ship with any progress at best happening in term two. I can't imagine the progress that would be made if we could actually keep the office for over two. Idiots though will be like. Oh some is just as bad as nothing or regression. Ugh. Humanity. So smart yet so dumb.