You may have noticed that in recent weeks, the Biden administration has been rolling out a hell of a lot of new regulations. Earlier this month it was big student loan reforms and a massive improvement in how public lands are managed, then this week we had better pay and working conditions for working Americans, minimum staffing ratios for nursing homes, and even improved service on airlines.
That’s not only because it’s an election year, though Joe & Kamala certainly do like to point out that where the Other Guy rages (and wants to raise inflation!) they’ve been busy making Americans’ lives better. But the bigger reason is that the administration wants to get new rules finalized prior to May, to keep them from being tossed out in the next Congress via the Congressional Review Act, which Donald Trump and his cronies used to reverse a bunch of Barack Obama’s environmental regulations.
. . . The requirement that coal plants find a way to eliminate 90 percent of their emissions by 2032 effectively accelerates the end of coal for power generation, which was inevitable anyway. Roughly 70 percent of US coal plants have already closed, and last year, coal generated only 16 percent of electric power, a new record low. In addition to the emissions rule, three other final rules also impose strict new limits on mercury, coal ash, and pollution of wastewater, to put an end to the environmental degradation caused by coal.
. . . The other option, obviously, would be for utilities to meet coming demand with renewables, as administration officials pointed out when previewing the new rule. Thanks to the IRA’s hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives, carbon-free power generation, including battery storage, already beats the cost of building new gas plants. Going forward, the administration is confident renewables will be the far more cost-effective and reliable way to meet increasing demand by 2032, when the emissions limits fully kick in.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Got a source for that?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-delays-sale-assault-rifles-israel-over-settler-violence-sources-2023-12-13/
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/13/us-israel-rifle-sale-delay-west-bank-violence
https://abcnews.go.com/International/senior-israeli-official-us-slow-walking-aid-us-disputes/story?id=108107192
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-discussing-slowing-weaponry-deliveries-israel-pre-rcna136035
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4434545-biden-administration-looking-to-slow-weapon-sales-to-israel-in-effort-to-scale-back-military-assault-report/
Thank you.
First two links are exclusively about rifles, not the bombs and shells being used on families in Gaza. The third article says:
Your last two articles say that three months ago the administration was considering thinking about exploring the possibility of debating the merits of slowing weapon deliveries.
It's not pragmatic to twiddle your thumbs while your weapons are used to commit atrocities. It's evil.
The false statement I was correcting was about "weapons". You never mentioned "bombs and shells". Here is the thing about bombs and shells. Israel has plenty of dumb bombs and shells, and they don't need the US to get more. What they get from the US are precision weapons, which means fewer bombs are required to hit a target. Whatever you think of Israeli tactics (and we probably agree completely) it's better for them to have the precision weapons.
The whole point of slow rolling weapons shipments is to be able to send a signal but maintain official deniability. Actually denying it is just maintaining that veneer.
I stated my position clearly so that it wouldn't be misconstrued, but you went and did it anyways. I support the general strategy of ramping up pressure, but I think it has been done far too slowly. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the powerful Israel lobby, but we passed the point where that should matter a long time ago.
And then sent them anyways in violation of the Leahy Law. You forgot that part.