this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
56 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

834 readers
188 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: 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 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

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.

Rule 7. No conjecture type posts (this could, might, may, etc.). Only factual. If the headline is wrong, clarify within the body. More info

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In Louisiana, natural gas—a planet-heating fossil fuel—is now, by law, considered “green energy” that can compete with solar and wind projects for clean energy funding. The law, signed by Republican Governor Jeff Landry last month, comes on the heels of similar bills passed in Ohio, Tennessee, and Indiana. What the bills have in common—besides an “updated definition” of a fossil fuel as a clean energy source—is language seemingly plucked straight from a right-wing think tank backed by oil and gas billionaire and activist Charles Koch.

Louisiana’s law was based on a template created by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative organization that brings legislators and corporate lobbyists together to draft bills “dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism.” The law maintains that Louisiana, in order to minimize its reliance on “foreign adversary nations” for energy, must ensure that natural gas and nuclear power are eligible for “all state programs that fund ‘green energy’ or ‘clean energy’ initiatives.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I said this in another thread as well, but it bears repeating that Natural Gas can be greener than other fossil fuels like coal or oil. As a step in the process, it's moving the ball in the right direction and most of the gas is mined locally, which means fewer international political complications. It is worth investing in natural gas as a part of a green energy future.

HOWEVER, far too many people make far too much money mining for and selling natural gas for it to be just part of the process. Corners are cut, toxic solvents go into the ground, people die of cancer, and we're still burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon into the air. It's better than strip mining for coal, and it's better than dealing with despots for oil, but if the human race expects to continue to thrive, it's not a solution.

So I'm torn on this. I want government investments in NG infrastructure, but I want it to come with thick, multistranded cable-like strings attached. I want environmental regulations, and labor regulations. I want price controls and tax revenue. And I want it to include a transition plan away from NG eventually as greener options become more viable.

And I'm fully aware none of that is possible with the current political landscape.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I feel like your "can be" should be more highlighted, because it definitely isn't in these cases.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Good point, it's not necessarily better. It can be much worse for the environment, especially when wells aren't properly drilled and capped, waste fluids aren't properly treated and disposed of, transportation pipes leak, or power plants burn inefficiently. All of those things cost money, which means less profit, which means nobody will do it voluntarily.