Biden Announces $2 Trillion Climate Plan (nytimes.com) 134
Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced on Tuesday a new plan to spend $2 trillion over four years to significantly escalate the use of clean energy in the transportation, electricity and building sectors, part of a suite of sweeping proposals designed to create economic opportunities and build infrastructure while also tackling climate change. DogDude shares a report: In a speech in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Biden built on his plans, released last week, for reviving the economy in the wake of the coronavirus crisis, with a new focus on enhancing the nation's infrastructure and emphasizing the importance of putting the United States on a path to significantly cut fossil fuel emissions. "These are the most critical investments we can make for the long-term health and vitality of both the American economy and the physical health and safety of the American people," he said, repeatedly criticizing President Trump's leadership on issues including climate and the pandemic. "When Donald Trump thinks about climate change, the only word he can muster is 'hoax.' When I think about climate change, the word I think of is 'jobs.'"
The proposal is the second plank in Mr. Biden's economic recovery plan. His team sees an opportunity to take direct aim at Mr. Trump, who has struggled to deliver on his pledges to finance major improvements to American infrastructure. Republicans are sure to criticize the proposal as an attack on jobs in the energy sector -- but the plan will also test whether Mr. Biden has found a way to win over environmental activists and other progressives who have long been skeptical about the scope of his ambitions on climate. His plan outlines specific and aggressive targets, including achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035 and upgrading four million buildings over four years to meet the highest standards for energy efficiency. The plan also calls for establishing an office of environmental and climate justice at the Department of Justice and developing a broad set of tools to address how "environmental policy decisions of the past have failed communities of color."
The proposal is the second plank in Mr. Biden's economic recovery plan. His team sees an opportunity to take direct aim at Mr. Trump, who has struggled to deliver on his pledges to finance major improvements to American infrastructure. Republicans are sure to criticize the proposal as an attack on jobs in the energy sector -- but the plan will also test whether Mr. Biden has found a way to win over environmental activists and other progressives who have long been skeptical about the scope of his ambitions on climate. His plan outlines specific and aggressive targets, including achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035 and upgrading four million buildings over four years to meet the highest standards for energy efficiency. The plan also calls for establishing an office of environmental and climate justice at the Department of Justice and developing a broad set of tools to address how "environmental policy decisions of the past have failed communities of color."
hoax (Score:5, Funny)
But what if climate change is a hoax and we end up making the world a better place for nothing?
This is an old joke (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be as racist, bigoted, homophobic, treehuggering, bleeding heart, etc, etc as you want and not be a troll if your points are made out of a genuine but misguided attempt to engage in conversation or debate.
You become a troll when your goal isn't to discuss those topics and how they pertain the the thread but are instead posting to cause confusion, anger and frustration.
For the troll the act of trolling is an end in and of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
so just like I said... the truth hurts don't it?
Classic troll comeback.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, those definitions certainly have changed. Shall we return to the original meanings! For example...
Bigot: An overly sanctimonious religious believer
Master/Slave: A human who owns another human, and the human who is owned
Black hole: A mass so dense that nothing can emerge from its gravitational pull, even light
Democracy: A political system where every citizen has an equal say in the running of the country, as long as they're male, not slaves or the descendents of immigrants, and wealthy enough to sp
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, those definitions certainly have changed. Shall we return to the original meanings! For example... "
Good point...
So lets follow your example and lets allow the words to change over time just like we have allowed.
Tomorrow people with the online names of "menbiller" no longer can be called human and therefor have no rights.
Black people are slaves again because all the words in the constitution setting them free now mean something else.
You no longer have 1st Amendment freedoms all those got changed too.
Y
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you are trying to be funny but even if not, I can answer that question, it would still be a BETTER place for no reason possibly.
Re: (Score:1)
Haha funny. Not.
The assumption is that fighting global warming will reduce pollution. Nope. See the VW dieselgate and the pollution resulting from manufacturing solar panels, batteries, unrecyclable windmills etc. All cause environmental damage while chasing the magical "low-carbon" ideal.
Want to reduce pollution? Go nuclear for cheap, reliable, safe, and clean energy. Even if global warming doesn't happen, we'll still be better off.
Re: (Score:2)
Link [wordpress.com]
Source for the cartoon with the "joke".
Re: (Score:2)
Only a liberal would say $2 trillion is "nothing".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of the current US fiscal nightmare, $2 trillion is indeed trivial.
Of course, it will also mostly be wasted and not accomplish much, but that's a given for government spending.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a liberal would say $2 trillion is "nothing".
A billion dollars is $3 per American.
A trillion dollars is $3000 per American.
Two trillion is $6000 per American or $24,000 for my family of four.
$24k is not "nothing" but my wife spent nearly that much remodeling our kitchen.
Re: (Score:1)
Because axing nuclear plants and building intermittent power grid that causes blackouts when wind isn't blowing without installing a massive expensive reserve is not making world a better place. Nor does increasing prices of electricity so that poor people have even more problems because of it make a world a better place.
These things aimed at overwhelmingly rich green audience. They make world worse for poor and middle class people. The people who actually care about the size of their electric bill, rather
Re: (Score:2)
You know what a lier is? Someone who knows the truth but tells the opposite or misguiding other wrongs.
So: you are a lier.
The people who actually care about the size of their electric bill, rather than viewing it as "less that I spend in a day on hookers and blow" as rich greens do.
Actually my electrical bill is about the size of a good book, and as far a I caught up in media, a blow job is 3 times as expensive as a typical household electrical bill. So: you are not only a lier but simply a profound idiot.
b
Responding to a "lier" (Score:2)
by someone who is not a speller?
Re: (Score:2)
What is a "speller"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure those countries will happily accept your donation.
Taxing people on that scale to help people in other countries is not going to happen though.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if climate change is a hoax and we end up making the world a better place for nothing?
Two trillion dollar may be nothing to you, but I doubt that it will be enough to make the world a better place. At least when the next ice age comes will all of this nonsense be over.
This is all about elections anyway. With some luck will we see Trump announce his plans for building Snowpiercer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky for us are we entering a new ice age.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Why is this considered a troll?
Because the pool of moderators includes people who's political biases rob them of all objectivity, motivating them to down-mod any post that they disagree with politically, regardless of whatever merits the post may have.
I actually think such people are in the majority, so most posts that say anything thought-provoking undergo a moderation war, with the final status often being a function of the biases of that's days selection of moderators, more than anything else.
He's also backing Net Neutrality (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, maybe the Republicans should have nominated one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Have to agree with you there, unfortunately there's that other 30 million who will help to make sure that the even worst choice stays in office.
Damn, I never thought I'd see a presidential election where the choices were Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber (take your pick which is which.) HL Mencken was right.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart
Re: (Score:2)
Of the 330 million or so residents of the U.S. about 300 million would make a more competent President than Biden.
I've got things growing in my refrigerator that would make a better President than either major party's candidate.
Re: (Score:3)
Of the 330 million or so residents of the U.S. about 300 million would make a more competent President than Biden.
Yea but 329,999,999 would make a better president than Trump. Sorry, I'm not normally partisan but you made that one so easy. This will be another South Park election.
It's about fucking time (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a tremendous relief to see him say this. I was concerned that he was just going to be a go along, get along corporate Democratic president who'll obviously not be insane like King Dipshit, but wouldn't want to make too many waves. In terms of both climate change and our economy, it's past time to start making some waves.
Re: (Score:1)
There is zero chance any of this passes even if he were to win.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Most rational people understand"
And most rational people are in the minority and therefore never have a chance in hell of getting the correct things done because all of their time is spend trying to convince the "irrational majority" that they are wrong.
By the way... no rational person would think any of this shit is rational. I guess your bullshit just got called!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the same thing any time we need to push forward as a nation. You'll never convince all of the crazies and uneducated and the self-serving, so you just make laws that force them to do the right thing. If we waited t
Re: (Score:1)
Your uncle with kidney cancer is a dead man walking, so he won't be a drain on your bank account much longer.
Re:It's about fucking time (Score:4, Interesting)
1) It plans to get net CO2 emissions to 0 (a lot of plans don't, which is a fail from the outset).
2) It addresses the car problem (through a combination of electric and biofuel).
3) It addresses the electricity problem (through solar, wind, and nuclear).
4) It allows nuclear as part of the solution (blindseer will be happy).
5) It admits that new technology will be required, and invests in it.
I personally am not very worried about AGW, but I do see this as a plan that can actually achieve the stated goal, whereas many other plans had no hope of achieving their stated goal.
Re: (Score:1)
> 4) It allows nuclear as part of the solution (blindseer will be happy).
This is important, maybe finally he'll shut the fuck up and let us have a discussion about power without his nuclear industry lobbying once we let them get on with it.
In all seriousness, I think it's good because it means the US can become a world leader in nuclear technology again too, and there's still so much scope for R&D advancement and so many potentially massive technology advancements there that could be game changing th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very worried.
I live half in German (or France) and Thailand.
Both countries have now the third or second drought in a row.
My wives rice fields look really bad, and in Germany the forrests are in real danger.
Re: (Score:2)
My wives rice fields look really bad,
Oh, I didn't know Germany was like that. How many wives do you have?
Re: (Score:2)
My wives all live in Thailand, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Rational people understand that this is nothing more than a desperate pandering attempt to get the radical Left Bernie/AOC wing on board and not riot against him too. Biden won't even remember giving this speech by tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they can. Do you think the DNC for an instant ever considers what anyone but the banksters and megacorps actually need? If so then you haven't been paying attention since Terry McAuliffe and the Clintons took over the party in the 1990s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A plan is probably a good idea to get storage and other things implemented faster than market forces would implement them but as far as power generation goes renewable power generation, particularly Wind and PV have gotten so cheap the entire power market is remaking around them at a pace that was even 10 years ago considered impossible.
So such a plan regarding electricity generation isn't much of an improvement, what I'd really like to see is carbon taxes that would speed the shift of the transportation ma
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, after living through an administration that is doing everything possible to harm the environment, I'm thrilled to have any sort of aggressive plan to try to mitigate the change, even if it's not absolutely perfect. It's a very big step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about fucking time he stepped up and did this. $2 Trillion probably isn't enough, but it's a good start. And 2035 is a reasonable time frame, as well.
Isn't there some sort of adage that states something to the effect of, "If a Politician proposes a deadline beyond their maximum term of office, they're completely full of shit?"
'35 probably would be a reasonable time frame, but it'd probably require both House and Senate to agree on fighting Climate Change being a real problem for at least 8 years as well as the Presidency being on board.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Details of the plan are important (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Details of the plan are important (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Solyndra 2.0 (Score:2, Interesting)
That's all? (Score:1)
Only $2 trillion? Considering the tens of trillions of taxpayer dollars the con artist has used to prop up the stock market to try and make himself look good, money which went straight to stock buybacks and executive bonuses, or the $7.5 trillion the central planning committee has so far used to bail out (again) multi-billion dollar companies who apparently can't survive more a few days without taxpayer assistance, $2 trillion is cheap. Not to mention it will help to create jobs which increases the tax ba
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I can't take this seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
"environmental policy decisions of the past have failed communities of color."
Is there ever an end to this stupid racist pandering? If I was a "person of color" I'd be insulted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is why I can't take this seriously (Score:2)
Re: This is why I can't take this seriously (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Is there ever an end to this stupid racist pandering?"
No. Everything is racist, sexist, gender-identist, ageist, classist, or whatever-ist. That is the "in" thing. It is identity politics in action. Hook some supposed victim group to your platform or proposal and start pushing it. Nothing is based on facts or reason, or wanting a real discussion or exploration of actual causes or solutions, just pandering and finger pointing to get votes or support. It is truly disheartening and divisive and has
Re: (Score:2)
"environmental policy decisions of the past have failed communities of color."
Is there ever an end to this stupid racist pandering?
When pandering isn't profitable, they'll stop.
In other words, don't expect it to stop anytime soon.
If I was a "person of color" I'd be insulted.
The insulting part is those pandering are profiting without doing a fucking thing to actually fix the problem.
In other words, Same Shit, Different Decade.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, SJW, you're asking me to prove a negative. You show me where "environmental policy" has "failed communities of color".
What a bunch of horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's it untrue? Can you give examples of where they are mistaken?
You're asking the wrong question. If a policy fails everyone, calling particular attention to the demographic you are addressing is nothing but pandering. Sure, black people have been affected, but so has everyone else.
For instance, despite supposedly being protected from harm by the pale complexion of their skin, I have an aunt and uncle who (so far as I know) each still receive regular checks from the federal government as a sort of, "Remember that time...well, dozens of times...we dropped fallout on you
Re: (Score:2)
No More Mr. Limpdick? (Score:2)
The problem I saw with Biden was similar to Hillary - they don't make anyone's dick hard. Figuratively speaking. Well maybe literally too. Anyway...
If the Biden crew can link the economic recovery to addressing the existential human problem of our generation and the next and the next, which is climate change... they start to build what looks like a compelling and cohesive vision for the nation. Emotionally, it looks like a combination of the Apollo program with the New Deal. That could hit Trump right in th
2 Tril. Where? (Score:2)
That's 2 trillion into the pockets of his buddies. Do you think we need to spend more? Politicians on both sides make me sick. Like a credit card payment, it will catch up to us someday.
Re: (Score:2)
That's 2 trillion into the pockets of his buddies.
Oh fuck off. The money is not going to his buddies. It's going to companies who will employ people with good paying jobs.
Going into the pockets of his buddies [time.com] is the purview of the con artist who continues to violate the Constitution [nytimes.com]. Oddly, not one word from Republicans on all this corruption and illegality.
Also, are you against the $7.5 trillion the central planning committee has already spent to once again bail out multi-billion dollar corporations, or
Conservative estimate (Score:2)
His plan outlines specific and aggressive targets, including achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035...
Judging by the current trend [slashdot.org], the power sector will get there on their own by that time, no further intervention required. The subsidies worked. Wind power is cheap, plentiful, and so widespread that it is starting to achieve the "wind is always blowing somewhere" affect. Installing a handful of grid scale batteries around the country would probably be wise, which this money could help finance, but actually shutting down the last of the coal plants is already inevitable. Running them is too expensive.
$2 trillion plan (Score:1)
"When Donald Trump thinks about climate change, the only word he can muster is 'hoax.' When I think about climate change, the word I think of is 'jobs.'"
When I think about climate change, all I can think about is taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
When I think about climate change, all I can think about is taxes.
I'm a biologist. Whenever I think about climate change, all I can think about is mass economic and environmental devastation. I wish "taxes" was my biggest concern.
So many things we can do that cost almost nothing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except the people will be roasting their pets over open trash fires to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying you remember that time when the US invested in a bunch of green energy companies and a couple of them didn't succeed, so the government should never consider giving money to companies ever again
Re: (Score:2)
So Solyndra lied, got money in good faith and failed. The Recovery and Reinvestment Act still was a net profit for the US government.
If you're upset about that, I'm sure you're absolutely livid about the paycheck protection program [marketwatch.com] which is already shaping up to be a doondoggle.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, don't get your panties in a twist, it's just for consumption by the party faithful. Neither he nor his advisors have the slightest illusion that any portion of it will ever become law, the DNC's own corporate sponsors would ensure that any such proposal would be DOA.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Will the $2T allow room for him to bail out his top donors like they did with Solyndra?
I guess that all depends on whether the country has any money left over after Trump doles it out to his friends.
Re: (Score:2)
thats politics for ya though...
one side bitching about the waste on the other because they are not the ones that got to waste it.
Meanwhile, the voters lose, but they also deserve to lose because those politicians are literally voted in by them! I almost never feel sorry for people that are hurt by their own governments. I only feel sorry for the children that never had a chance.. those are the innocent ones.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the company Obama cut off when he found out they had falsified their documents? Or did you mean like the central planning committee under Powell which is at $7.5 trillion and counting of monies given to bail out businesses who apparently can't exist for more than a few days without the taxpayers footing the bill.
Also, that program where Solyndra got called out makes money for the government [bloomberg.com]. Needless
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
If you want people to believe that climate change is real, and all you AGW believers should actually ACT like it is real instead of saying it is real and never changing how you live.
Well, we could terminate and compost you. That would be a big change.
Re:Wait... this if for climate change? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want people to believe that climate change is real, and all you AGW believers should actually ACT like it is real instead of saying it is real and never changing how you live.
That's a good point - the average citizen of any random country is sooo empowered to change global behavior! It's never been easier!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait... this if for climate change? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is real, regardless of what you believe.
Sincerely,
A scientist
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point. If you make it sound so bad and the world is going to end next year, and here is 2 trillion dollars to help fix it. (keep printing the money and more debt, where is the plan to PAY for it) then people will question, and you will make people who don't. If you would just give the facts, and be honest, like say these are models and this is the worst case scenario, you would attract more people to your cause. Also, government spending has NEVER worked to get the economy going again. Fu
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't read that anywhere in the article or in Biden's proposal. Who is telling you that the world is ending next year?
Also, government spending has NEVER worked to get the economy going again.
False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If you would just give the facts, and be honest, like say these are models and this is the worst case scenario, you would attract more people to your cause.
Facts have been available for severa
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate has always changed, and always will. And the data is still inconclusive about the degree to which man and CO2 impact changes we are seeing today, to any level of significance.
Sincerely,
A scientist and engineer
Re: (Score:2)
You are neither a scientist nor an engineer, just a stupid idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people believe that climate change is an important issue, and that the current leadership has done little, if anything, to "move the ball forward". It is difficult to pick an area where Trump has done less. It is nice to see someone propose something real.
Re: (Score:2)
> I believe this is where you have to clean up your own bedrooms first before you tell others how to clean up the world.
So, what, I can't advocate for addressing climate change if I drive a car, use electricity or eat food that was grown on a commercial farm?
Please tell us what criteria you expect "AGW believers" to meet before you take the problem seriously, as if how individuals act has any bearing on the facts of observable reality...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Act like it's real by voting to spend serious money on it?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want people to believe that climate change is real, and all you AGW believers should actually ACT like it is real instead of saying it is real and never changing how you live.
As someone who has done so, I agree with you. However, there are major hurdles that I simply cannot get past. Industrial pollution accounts for 70% of all the pollution in the US. Therefore, we need to incentivize not polluting while disincentivizing polluting.
A simple "carbon tax" on everything that would increase over time would shift the nation toward better energy sources. This taxes would be used to pay companies that actually captured CO2 and turned it into either something useful or back into soo
The ACA saves 70,000 lives a year (Score:2)
By all accounts the changes we've made to how we pollute and to push for Green energy have bought us decades of time. A lot of which we squandered in the 90s and 2000s. But it doesn't mean the lives saved were wasted.
Finally I think you're saying that individual action is the solution
Re: (Score:2)
This 100%! I'd love to live in a dense, culture-rich neighborhood, but cities routinely rob from those neighborhoods and spend the tax revenue in affluent, low-density neighborhoods [strongtowns.org], making dense neighborhoods artificially expensive compared to low-density suburbs which generate half as much tax revenue per housing unit and cos [streetsblog.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you want people to believe that climate change is real, and all you AGW believers should actually ACT like it is real
I guess one of the most impactful actions is to vote - at the ballot box, and with each dollar you spend.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot more of it will go to the military.
Re: (Score:2)