The archive.today link just points to the original article - it's not an archive
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
106 points (99.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5392 readers
278 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Thanks for pointing that out; I clearly made a cut-and-paste error. Fixed now.
Thanks for getting to it so fast! Looks good now.
What importance? Neither party is giving up oil subsidies or really investing all that much into green energy, and neither party has even the slightest thought about criminally investigating investors and owners of oil and coal companies for their, and this cannot be overstated, crimes against humanity that top all other crimes ever committed by any arbitrary grouping of people.
The choices are accelerate climating change incredibly quickly via fake carbon capture technology and carbon credit schemes that not only don't lead to lower total emissions but actually increase emissions, or accelerate even faster by releasing the few regulations we have rregarding the environment.
The reality is that the Democrats are investing huge amounts in green energy
The Biden administration initially expected the law to provide some $370 billion in spending and tax credits for clean energy projects, but other groups expect the figure to be far higher as more companies and households take advantage of the law’s tax credits. The Brookings Institution estimated the I.R.A. could be worth $780 billion through 2031, while Goldman Sachs set a potential total cost of $1.2 trillion.
370 billion, mostly for tax credits that are actively being abused by bad actors, all that don't address the actual problems. Every house could have solar panels and every car could be an EV and it simply would not be enough to get anywherr near carbon neutrality, much less the needed carbon negative to avoid 2c by 2030.
The reality is China proved it was possible to lower emissions by actual green investment, building more green energy production last year than the total green energy capacity of the US. They've hit peak emissions while the US hasn't. This isn't meant as a China good thing, to preempt that nonsensical reply, but merely as a direct example of what the US could do given they have similar (though slightly lower) GDP. At this point in time China produces more green energy than the US produces total.
US emissions peaked back in 2007
This leads me to believe that you're making an appeal to ignorance.
The US could do similar, but the Democrats couldn’t on account of all legislation in the last decade needing Republican approval to not get filibustered, and Republicans hating the idea of any subsidy that interferes with the “free market” outside of oil subsidies.
While the US government could absolutely be doing more in theory, in practice I think the climate legislation the Democrats have managed to get past Republican obstruction has been very impressive.
Dems have actively chosen to keep the filibuster despite having multiple opportunities to remove it as a rule.
Multiple opportunities, in the last few decades? To my knowledge the only point they had the votes to was that one three month period where they got the ACA though, before that was in the 70s when party line votes were pretty rare.
It's a simple majority vote on the start of a session, Dems have had a simple majority plenty of times
A simple majority vote via the nuclear option could be undone just as quickly once things shifted, and from my understanding would never be an option in future if done once. To actually officially change the rules and eliminate the filibuster in a way that isn’t just procedural a two thirds majority is required.
It's a procedural rule, yes it can be put back in place if Republicans want to, they don't, but it can be. This is because it has no law associated with it, no bill to pass, it's something the Senate made up to stall civil rights and especially keep brown senators in the 1800s from doing anything the extreme white minority didn't want.
It's not a 'nuclear option,' it's a return to how the country was designed to function and did function for more than a century.
It was created in its current form by the formal adoption of senate rule 22 in 1917, which would explicitly take a two thirds majority to edit or remove and if not removed would leave the filibuster on the books. It’s also worth noting that filibusters were incredibly rare in the 1800s, especially pre civil war, with its use to stall civil rights legislation mainly being a 1940s and later thing.
The procedure to go around rule 22 by rasing a point of order in contradiction to established precedent is commonly called the ‘nuclear option’ by everyone from the media to reformists discussing it, and is recognized as the only likely way short of the two thirds majority needed to amend rule 22 to get around the senate filibuster. I think the name is more than a little grandiose, but it is the commonly accepted name for the procedure.