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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.”
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.
So yeah, while I think Biden is the most progressive president since FDR, his record on oil drilling isn’t so great.
deleted by creator
I don’t think that’s ever been in serious doubt; the same simulation mechanisms used to produce climate modeling were used to figure out that nuclear winter is an issue in the first place. It’s just that most people would prefer to address global warming without mass murder.
So just nuke Antarctica. No one dies except some penguins, global warming ended. And they said it was hard /s
That doesn’t actually work. Nuclear winter is caused by the stuff which gets mixed up with the blast. Hit Antarctica and all you get is water.
On top of that, it’s where air descends from the stratosphere, so whatever particulates you do generate probably won’t achive worldwide distribution at significant concentrations
All you get is water but it’s not just water.
Water in the admosphere is an extremely strong (but short lived) greenhouse gas.
And while it was hit, it could also be irradiated. While a nuclear blast has less radiation impact than a nuclear plant burning, throwing many nuclear bombs in one place may have other impacts. Contaminated water can be assimilated by living things. And while in the body, it can do damage.
There’s also more freshwater in Antarctica than in the rest of the world. Quite a waste, and enough of it to contaminate every source across the planet.
Nuclear winter is about as likely as a solution to global warming though.
There is, of course, the possibility of geoengineering with sulfur dioxide. Sort of a nuclear winter without the nuclear. It’s the same mechanism by which nuclear would and volcanoes do cause climate cooling. Not very safe but it may be in our emergency bag of tricks.
What is safe? Seems like everything we do is toxic and dangerous
Wasn’t there a proposal to do something similar by using ships to blast saltwater into the air? All the cloud coverage and reflected sunlight, none of the acid rain.
I think that’s actually relatively low-risk to do as well (as far as experimental geoengineering goes). A significant portion of the warming in the North Atlantic has been attributed to lack of sulfur emissions due to changes in requirements for container ship fuels. Should be able to get a similar effect with just water with the effects being understood well in advance.
@spaduf @I_Has_A_Hat I’d be much more confident in this if ANY government decided to spend money on it. Most of them won’t spend money on bike lanes!
We just have to learn the hard way don’t we?
As an elementary school teacher, “the hard way” is the overwhelming choice of kids. I don’t think it changes that much when they grow into adults.
Or we can work to stop things that are existential crises.
Of course. Climate change is happening, and will keep getting worse until all the biggest countries agree to do and actually go through with doing something substantial about it (or to fully isolate the economies of those that refuse). Nuclear war is just an idea.
It’s doubtful curbing CO2 output will put a stop to it now. We’re already seeing the beginnings of feedback loops kicking in, and with them runaway climate collapse.
We’ve got pretty clear evidence that getting emissions to zero is enough to stop the increase in average surface temperature.
Right, we need net zero emissions, no further destruction of nature, and then we can start doing something to undo what we’ve already done.
There is no undoing what we’ve done. The icecaps will soon be gone and once they are gone they are gone for good
The icecaps didn’t always exist, and they can reform. It will take a long time mind you.
Putting up a solar shade would artificially cool the Earth enough for the ice caps to refreeze.
We really ought to collect all of that meltwater and distribute it to drought-stricken regions anyway.
We need most of the West and the upper classes of China to reduce their consumption of meat and animal products substantially.
The sun is a nuclear furnace. Climate change IS nuclear war!
(we should nuke the sun)
Gotta nuke something
If it’s good enough for Superman, it’s good enough for me.
we should nuke the sun
ok, how
By tying nukes to rockets and sending them to the sun, duh!
If we go by night, we will even be able to see the explosion from Earth!
lol
Use a bigger star.
I’ve got some bad news… We’re already there.
Not exactly. Most references to 1.5C are about the long term average hitting that level, not an individual year.
Given the trend, it’s a pretty strong indicator we’re there. What is long-term in the context of a change over 10-20 years, that’s reaching a breakaway point?
You understand that when things are steadily moving in one direction, we’d need to overshoot the difference between the start of the reference period and the 1.5 degree figure by 100%(incorrectly assuming linear change - the reality is more exponential - far worse by the time it shows up)
For example - for a 1.5C change over 6 years, starting at 0C:
-
Year 0 - real temp 0, average 0
-
Year 3 - real temp 1.5, average 0.75
-
Year 6 - real temp 3, average 1.5
The year to year variation is much larger than the underlying increase. We could easily see several years with the anomaly under 1.5C before
-
Then finally start making the companies that make a win out of it pay more taxes!! Like, CO² taxes, import/export taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_companies_by_revenue
That’s something that requires an act of Congress rather than Biden… And with the current House makeup, extremely unlikely.
Ok, i’m not american, so thanks. Still, they are supposed to be leaders but are self-centered like children. They should go to kindergarten again, to learn compromise.
That’s what most American citizens also believe.
The next 10 or 20 years? I just read an article that hit it already and will likely do it consistently over the next several years. The next 10-20 will likely few closer to a 3.6°F (2°C) rise.
I think I know the one you’re talking about, and the headline is somewhat misleading. This comes with the disclaimer that I don’t want to downplay the severity of any of this, but it’s important to have the right context.
What’s happened is that we’ve had two months in a row with extreme temperatures. It had been this high back in 2016. However, we’re not going to have an average of +1.5C of extra warming this year, or in the next few years.
It’s still bad, just not that bad.
Year-to-year surface temperatures vary significantly. Look at a graph like this:
and it’s clear that we could easily have a string of years below this year’s temperature
We could but the current El Niño is supposed to be pretty significant. We also have significantly less sulfur oxide being spewed by international shipping which has a large cooling effect on the oceans. It is good that we cut down on that pollution and there are things we can replace it with that will have similar effects and are less damaging but there is currently nothing planned that would essentially replace that coming effect.
While you are correct that there is a good amount of variability in the temperature, I think it is just as likely that it will be variability the other way.
Putin might save us all when he orders some confused kid to turn those keys.
May I remind you global thermonuclear war is bad for the environment?
The environment around Chernobyl is doing great without people.
It’s not bad for the inviroment it’s bad for people. The climate is coming back over time.
He won’t order it. He knows that the most likely result is that he just nukes Russia, and then gets a retaliatory strike when the world realizes he just tried to nuke someone.
Climate change is scary, but scarier than nuclear war? I dunno, man.
deleted by creator
Relaaaax. We’re not going to die. Most likely anyways. Our children tho… hoo boy they might have a bit of a problem on their hands
Hey so as someone who is 35 and has survived massive flooding and a heat dome, the “its not something we’ll have to worry about” line doesn’t really make sense when I think about getting old and experiencing things like dementia or limited mobility in a world at 1.75 degrees warming
Hey as someone who is most likely headed for Alzheimer’s myself, at least I won’t even know I’m living in hell on earth! Silver lining I guess… 😅
I don’t know, I’m 25 and we’re starting to feel the effect very obviously now. What makes you think it won’t be seriously affecting me in my life?
It will obviously affect all of us to varying degrees. But we won’t all die. Quite a lot will die (a lot of old people and a lot of poor people, as is tradition), but we don’t get anywhere by making a Hollywood movie out of it. It’s serious enough on it’s own.
HAHA, jokes on you, I haven’t procreated!
We’re fucked already. The question now is about how much we will be fucked and if we can survive this. See what happened in Hawaï. It happened in Europe too. Cyclones will be a lot more common too. Heat waves are already hitting several times per year in what were temperate places. Agriculture is already suffering, and with it will come famine.
It’s important to act now, because things will only get worse and it’s bad enough already.
IMHO this mostly tells us that Biden is talking about climate policy with the people around him. That’s enough to be a big deal.
Yeah, when all the Republicans in the last debate said it wasn’t real, or whatever words were used, this is a clear difference on what’s likely the most important issue for most voters.
Sadly a large chunk of voters don’t consider climate to be their top issue
Nuclear war is quick.
Climate change is slow.
Gimme the quick flash over the boiling frog deal Everytime.
If you’re lucky enough to be one of the minimal handful who actually die in the quick flash. More likely you’ll be one of the multitudes poisoned by radioactive fallout or starved by nuclear winter.
It’s not better.
I live near silos.
I’m getting vaporized. Hells yeah.
No siree, I live next to a state capitol, I’ll be just fine
I just want one of those Hawaii-style text message warnings, so I can start driving toward Boston asap
now you’re getting it
The scariness multiplied by the probability of it happening maybe…
IDK, climate-fueled illnesses — tied to hotter temperatures, and swifter passage of pathogens and toxins. Continuing pandemics would be no treat.
Nuclear war is obviously terrible. But it’s still somewhat localised between the warring nations.
Climate change is everywhere and will eventually be just as devastating and then quickly much worse if not resolved
It definitely is. It is far, far more cataclysmic than a nuclear war. You’ll discover that soon unfortunately.
I like how no one here mentioned the obvious fact that climate change disasters will only make world powers more willing to start a nuclear war. Just look at North Korea, what will happen when they have a huge famine or flood or fire or whatever and even the Kims can’t fill their bellies, what then?
Didn’t we just hit 1.5C today?
We’re still some years from hitting an ongoing sustained average of 1.5°C above what it was in the late 1800s. That’s what people mostly talking about when they say 1.5°C
This year will be above 1.5°C. Which means we did reach that.
What you’re talking about is the average of yearly average temperatures. But it’s not what we’re looking at. We’ve never seen earth average temperature above +1.5. And averages don’t move much. I don’t care if next year will “only” be +1.49…
Ive seen fuck all investment in solar where I’m at. Id really like to contribute labor to it, but there’s nothing.
A lot has been happening in the southwest US, including Texas.
Here is the rural Midwest there is a huge investment in wind turbines. They are everywhere you look. I think what renewable is popular depends on your region.
There are specific areas where nothing is happening. For example, Alberta has a moratorium on renewables in order to benefit the local fossil fuels industry.
Lol that is the most Alberta thing I’ve ever heard.
Iowa had the most wind turbines in the US like…before Obama was even president I believe. But I wouldnt know what’s been invested there federally since Biden took over, because I cant find any info on where those investments are going.
Where I’m at, we’re actually getting a decent amount of solar, but unfortunately the power district is building the solar fields over some remnant tallgrass prairie, probably since it’s cheaper than buying agricultural or residential land. This sucks since we’ve destroyed 98% of all the tallgrass prairie in the US, which makes it one of the most endangered biomes in the world, which is extra sucky since tallgrass prairie is one the most effective biomes at sequestering carbon, much more than even forests/woodlands.
And what he is doing to prevent it? Did the US decided to FINALLY SIGN THE FUCKING KYOTO PROTOCOL?
As I originally posted:
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.
Read the post before commenting, you doughnut
he is doing too little too late.
You’re right, he should have done more while Trump was president!
He was a senator, he is not an outsider. He have power inside his party. What historically Biden has done?
Well for one, no. Biden was not a Senator while Trump was president… But giving you the benefit of the doubt that you meant his Senate career prior to being VP.
Found some stuff on google: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/08/joe-biden/was-joe-biden-climate-change-pioneer-congress-hist/
And this site claims, over his 40+ year Senate career, that he made a pro-environmental vote 83% of the time: https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden.
Yes, League of Conservative Voters… But I don’t know that necessarily means it’s wrong. They’ve got all the votes there so I guess you can check yourself.
Removed by mod
