i always hate this because its like...ok...but you are president now so just target it now.
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
81 points (93.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5053 readers
381 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A few reasons:
- Spending significant amounts of money needs congressional support and the Republicans control one house of Congress
- Changing laws requires not just a majority, but a 60% supermajority in the Senate
- The US regulatory process is designed to be slow, and the EPA lost most of its staff under Trump, so they prioritized the low-hanging fruit
Sounds like it’s probably not going to happen then if all the stars have to alight to get it.
funny how real change is just on the horizon but always out of reach. almost as if it were by design
The US political system is designed to protect the prerogatives of the wealthy. It takes a sustained majority over time to overcome that. We've gotten to the point where there has been significant but not yet sufficient action:
- Biden cut the issuance of drilling leases to the minimum required by law
- Signed the Inflation Reduction Act
- enacted a regulation to force vehicle electrification into law
- passed a regulation to force fossil fuels out of most power plants
The Washington Post has a much more complete list
It's not so much about the stars all aligning, but needing to hold a majority of the centers of power for long enough. We've gone from being blown off to not having the votes to do anything at all to getting significant but not yet sufficient action. Getting to where we need to be is going to happen at some point, and it's on us to make it happen sooner rather than later.
I envy your optimism, but this just sounds like an empty promise with a built in scapegoat. What makes you so sure this will happen?
I'm not. It takes electing more and better Democrats instead of lurching into fascism. We could well fail, but it's crazy to not try
It is hypothetically more likely to occur when folks who want it to occur are employed/elected than when those people are specifically absent
Also, opportunities for different policies are determined by the political cycle. Bold policies are usually done at the beginning of a term, presidential or otherwise because they know they've got the American people behind their back. They were just elected after all.
Mid-terms are usually when they focus on the economy and other things closer to normal people so that when the election roles around, what that politician did will be more salient in the voter's mind.
We got a lot of that:
- Cut the issuance of drilling leases to the minimum required by law
- pass the Inflation Reduction Act
- enact a regulation to force vehicle electrification
- pass a regulation to force fossil fuels out of most power plants
The Washington Post has a much more complete list
Some things got overturned in court, like the drilling permit moratorium.
Also, the mid-terms were in 2022. Getting more and better Democrats in congress plus reelecting Biden would make it possible to do a lot more.
He accelerated it in his first term, so fuck em.
Yeah, but what's the alternative?
It's a fucked up system we (in the industrial society) have. I would obviously want to have a different candidate that's less influenced by lobby and rich people. But it's not what the "system wants to have"...
Younger, progressive candidates.
“If you are seen as imposing debilitating regulations on heavy industry that employs large numbers of people, you’re not only going to get a backlash from manufacturing, but labor as well,” said David Axelrod, the Democratic strategist who ran former President Barack Obama’s campaigns. “How to do that without looking like you are stabbing these industries in the back, or in the front for that matter, is a real political challenge.”
Godbless him he's trying, but no... it's not actually hard to get labor on board with this.
Step 1: Consult labor leaders and make labor standards and union requirements for government contracts a part of the regulatory requirements.
Step 2: Place barriers on outsourcing.
That's kind of it. You say, "We're going to place new burdens on this industry!" and the executives say, "We'll hold jobs hostage!" and you say "No... if you want to deal in US dollars, you'll make it here, you'll employ unionized workers, and you'll smile and thank us for all the fucking money you're making."