US Climate Credibility on the Line as Biden Heads To COP26 (reuters.com) 173
President Joe Biden wants to show the U.N. climate conference in Scotland that the United States is back in the fight against global warming. But continued haggling in Congress over legislation to advance his climate goals threatens to undermine that message on the world stage. From a report: Biden leaves for Europe on Thursday for a G20 meeting in Rome followed by a gathering of world leaders in Glasgow aimed at saving the planet from the devastation wreaked by rising temperatures. Biden had hoped to showcase legislation designed to fulfill a U.S. pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions 50-52% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, seeking to provide an example that would encourage other nations to take bold, quick action to protect the Earth. The plan includes hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in clean energy, but some aspects such as a program that would reward electricity companies for investing in renewables and penalize those that did not, have been cut from a bill to fund his social and climate change agenda. As of Wednesday evening, Biden's fellow Democrats had still not reached an agreement, forcing him to leave Washington without a deal in hand.
Pledges (Score:5, Insightful)
Pledges are a joke. Legislation promising to achieve this 20 years from now is a joke. Instead, why don't we get better funding for battery technology or fusion?
Re:Pledges (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's far more important to make noise about looking like we're doing something than it is to actually do something. Especially here in the states. That's been our governments operating mode since as long as any living person can remember. Make noises, point fingers, shove money into "industry leader" pockets as a huge gesture of doing something and then that money does nothing.
Re:Pledges (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it's far more important to make noise about looking like we're doing something than it is to actually do something.
That is remarkably true. Arguably even more important to make people mad about what the other side is doing (that seems to be the attempt of this article).
In theory, it should be much more than just talk (Score:5, Informative)
The Build Back Better Act invests hundreds of billions into clean energy.
Or at least, it would, if Manchin/Sinema and the GOP would vote for what their constituents actually want instead of playing politics.
Re: In theory, it should be much more than just ta (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Build back better, pours billions into the sand. Itâ(TM)s just as doomed as Californiaâ(TM)s high speed rail fiasco.
Sure but the only reason you are saying build back better, pours billions into the sand is because you loathe the people who are doing it. This is literally the first time in a decade or more that I can remember anybody actually trying to spend significant money on America, the actual America, not the rich bastards who benefitted from the Trump tax cuts. Manchin and the GOP are wringing their hands about spending $3,5 trillion on modernising US infrastructure but they had no problem voting to spend $10 tril
Re: (Score:2)
they had no problem voting to spend $10 trillion on foreign wars.
The decision to start the war was bipartisan, with overwhelming support from both parties.
why the US can afford to play GI-Joe in the Middle East to the tune of $10 trillion but can't afford to fix potholes, roads and bridges in its own back yard for a mere $3,5 trillion.
So your best argument for spending $3.5 trillion is that we spent more on something even stupider?
Re: In theory, it should be much more than just ta (Score:5, Insightful)
they had no problem voting to spend $10 trillion on foreign wars.
The decision to start the war was bipartisan, with overwhelming support from both parties.
why the US can afford to play GI-Joe in the Middle East to the tune of $10 trillion but can't afford to fix potholes, roads and bridges in its own back yard for a mere $3,5 trillion.
So your best argument for spending $3.5 trillion is that we spent more on something even stupider?
I don't really care. These bozos voted in $10 trillion on foreign wars and $2,3 trillion in tax cuts for the ultra wealthy but they are now squealing about spending $3,5 trillion on regular Americans because alluvasudden they have become 'fiscally responsible'. The hypocrisy of that is staggering.
Re: (Score:3)
We're hitting bad inflation now and the time to be dumping more wasted money and printing money to do it...is not now.
Re: In theory, it should be much more than just ta (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting for tax cuts and then opposing new spending is not hypocrisy. It is consistency, the opposite of hypocrisy.
Voting for $10 trillion in foreign wars, voting for $2,3 trillion in tax cuts for people already swimming in money and then opposing new spending to rebuild the infrastructure of your own goddamn country is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy, the opposite of consistency.
Re: (Score:3)
Voting for tax cuts you can't afford, and then obstructing spending based on arguments about ballooning debt is indeed hypocrisy. They voted to increase national debt, and then cry about national debt when someone else is in charge of setting the agenda.
How do you not see that?
Re: (Score:2)
ok, how about "we spent 3.5T on giving tax cuts to people that absolutely do not need a tax cut, so how about we reverse that and spend $3.5T on fixing shit that needs fixing in order to actually grow the economy instead of talking about it?"
New bridges, ports, etc. don't just wink into existence because a President signs a law, they need to be built. That means $3.5T of construction projects, renovations, repairs, and other spending going right into the economy over 10 years being paid back in multiples o
Re: In theory, it should be much more than just ta (Score:5, Insightful)
It can't be that hard to find out why Senator Manchin opposes the bill, can it? It wasn't that hard for me to find the statement he published on his US Senate website. Here's the link: https://www.manchin.senate.gov... [senate.gov]
As I understand it his opposition to the $3.5 trillion on roads, bridges, and EV chargers is that this is a lie told to cover up the many trillions more spent on social programs for people that don't need the money. $3.5 trillion isn't the ceiling on the spending it's "a good start", with no real plan to make up for the spending with taxes.
If you don't understand why there is opposition then it is through willful ignorance. If you disagree with the opposition then that's something else. Manchin has been quite vocal on why he opposed the bill, and your description of the issue must be from ignorance, malice, or being chin deep in the party kool-aid. I'm sure Democrats have the best intentions but they suck at the arithmetic involved. I recall it was Ronald Reagan that said, "...it's that so much that they believe is not true." I recall this was in response to a comment about the Democrats fiscal policy.
This isn't $3.5 trillion dollars that pays for itself. This is opening up a money pit that could bankrupt the federal government.
Money for bridges, potholes, and maybe EV chargers would fall under the federal power for providing infrastructure. What is not under federal authority is "human infrastructure" like pre-K to community college paid for by the government, government paid health care, and other spending that would bankrupt many small businesses. That's not just too much money but it's also likely outside of the constitutionally granted authority of the federal government to pay for.
Sending GI Joe off to sandy places to kill people and break things is explicitly stated in the constitution, though not in those words. The federal government paying people to go to school is not in the constitution. It may be implied when the purpose is to train people for the military or a job in the government. The government is not obligated to provide this education without some kind of payment in return. If there is such an obligation then that lies at the state or local level, not federally.
Re: (Score:2)
He opposes the bill because he's a Democrat in statewide office in a state that voted >70% Republican in the last election, with a deeply flawed Republican candidate that a minority of Republicans cannot stand and therefore voted Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
You are an NPC, a non-player character. I explained the issue, showed you the Senator's statement, but still go back to loop the same thing like a some kind of doll that had the string pulled from it's chest. You are not making an argument, you are stuck in a loop like a video came NPC or a pull string doll. Make an argument already. Think on your feet a bit. Cite a source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're wrong about what the country wants. Polling shows that the economic plan is quite favored, actually. Like 66% support it, 10% undecided, and only 24% opposed. [navigatorresearch.org] Here is another poll that shows support above 60% [filesforprogress.org] for the BBB Act as well, and even more interestingly, support bumps up 5% when the question is modified to say that raising taxes on the wealthy (defined in a previous question) and corporations to pay for it.
Get out of your echo chamber - people actually want functional government that deliv
Re: (Score:3)
Or at least, it would, if Manchin/Sinema and the GOP would vote for what their constituents actually want instead of playing politics.
Your idea is that GOP voters want their senators to support Build Back Better? I don't think that's likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea is that GOP voters want their senators to support Build Back Better? I don't think that's likely.
All of them? No. But a subset of them definitely though and are not represented by their constituents due to party politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Had too much beer. Their *senators are not representing their constituents.
Re: (Score:2)
Here [navigatorresearch.org] are some polls [filesforprogress.org] that show that there indeed is Republican support for Build Back Better, and support only goes up if additional taxes are levied on $400k/year salary earners and corporations.
Specifically, on the second link, question 1 helps to define what people think of as "the wealthy" when talking about taxing the wealthy; questions 3 and 4 show a delta of support between merely passing BBB versus passing BBB and paying for it with taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations; questions 5-9 cover v
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obvious issues where this comes into play is the risk of debt default and government shut down, the Republicans played this game repeatedly with Obama, and have been playing it with Biden but the vast majority of voters are against it.
Your idea is that Republicans play games with the debt limit, but Democrats don't? Is that an honest opinion?
Re:In theory, it should be much more than just tal (Score:5, Informative)
Obvious issues where this comes into play is the risk of debt default and government shut down, the Republicans played this game repeatedly with Obama, and have been playing it with Biden but the vast majority of voters are against it.
Your idea is that Republicans play games with the debt limit, but Democrats don't? Is that an honest opinion?
It's pretty damn accurate. In the somewhat recent past when Democrats have voted against the debt ceiling (early 2000s, when the previous few years which raised the national debt were very much under Republican control and responsibility), they did not filibuster the vote and the bills passed easily.
We just watched Republicans actively filibuster a vote to raise the debt ceiling, for which they are quite responsible for - 7 trillion dollars was added to the national debt over the previous presidential term. The debt ceiling is not being raised to counter long-term future debt on new bills, but to handle debt incurred by past bills. Trump's tax cuts added just about 2 trillion directly to the debt on their own. You might say "oh they were just trying to force the Democrats to waste one of their three possible bills they can run this year", but that's not actually true - Mitch was forced to cough up ten Republican votes to pass a filibuster because there were Republicans that were filibustering it anyway. He can just barely contain the crazy, and he's having to actually concede to them weekly.
In other words, we just watched the Republicans actively try to force the US to default on its debt. And they say they're the part of Business. Bullshit. There is nothing pro-business about jump-starting a deep global recession.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Democrats play games with the debt ceiling, and you admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "they both do" with no context is an attempt to make both sound somehow comparable in this regard. A half truth with a lot of omission. Nothing to be proud of.
Re: (Score:2)
ok? What do you want me to say, I have deep contempt for both parties, and disrespect anyone who aligns with either side?
Re: (Score:3)
ok? What do you want me to say, I have deep contempt for both parties, and disrespect anyone who aligns with either side?
You're still equivocating. Do you think they are equally bad? As an external observer, the Dems look like the usual pile of political shite to me and yet still vastly preferable to the Republicans. They are by no means equally bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm right there with you. So I look at issues individually, and then look at what each candidate is saying about the issues that speak to me. And the person that aligns closely with my views, gets my vote.
Want my vote? Speak to my issues, and show that you can represent ME instead of a logo with an elephant or a donkey on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your reason for preferring the Dems is because you agree with what they say, not because you think they don't play politics (or even play less politics) with the debt ceiling. That has nothing to do with your reason for favoring them.
Re: (Score:2)
Whataboutism to justify bad behavior just begets bad behavior. Why don't we equally excoriate both parties for playing games with the full faith and credit of the United States, and punish assholes who do it anyway at the ballot box? Or, better yet, realize that the debt ceiling was created as a tool of isolationist foreign policy advocates during World War I to limit US involvement, and serves no purpose because spending is already limited by the line items in spending bills that they already vote on.
Vot
Re: (Score:2)
It's honest for the last couple debt limit fights, yes. During the Trump years, the Democrats only put up token resistance to raising or suspending the debt ceiling. Every time that it's turned into full-on brinkmanship, it's been due to Republicans demanding shit - austerity during the Obama years, and now just straight up obstinance to pay for the tax cuts they voted to pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They also recognize good ideas when they see them, which is why there is a significant plurality of support for Build Back Better [filesforprogress.org] - to the tune of ~63% favorable. Especially when wealthy individuals and corporations will be taxed more to pay for it - the numbers go up to 68%. And the individual idea of taxing people that make more than 400k/year goes up above 70%.
There's actually wide support for this if you get out of the right-wing echo chamber.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, a large chunk of the GOP's constituency is perfectly happy with them being obstructionist assholes. In fact, some members of Congress were elected on their promise to be overtly obstructionist assholes. More than a few Senators, too.
Re:Pledges (Score:5, Informative)
Europe has tracked closely with its goals: "The EU markedly surpassed its 2020 emissions reduction target of 20%. According to recent estimates, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU Member States were 31% lower in 2020 than they were in 1990, exceeding the EU's climate target by 11 percentage points. With one exception in 2017, the EUâ(TM)s GHG emissions were below the 2020 reduction target for the past 7 years, with the rapid decline in emissions observed in the last 2 years contributing significantly to this overshoot."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pledges (Score:2, Interesting)
In multiple countries in Europe judge's have forced governments to provide achieve schedules for environmental goals committed to at EU level, sometimes to disastrous economic effect.
Nitrogen emissions are shaving off percentage points of GDP in the Netherlands and soon Belgium, as well as causing social unrest as mass immigration, building stops, exploding home prices and destroying farmers all come to a head. Pledges do mean something here.
Re: (Score:2)
That is interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Pledges are a joke. Legislation promising to achieve this 20 years from now is a joke. Instead, why don't we get better funding for battery technology or fusion?
That's the Biden plan [joebiden.com]. But it's far from ideal. Do we really want the government picking winners and losers? We need the other side to propose a market-driven solution. Otherwise we'll end up with a top-down approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, why don't we get better funding for battery technology or fusion?
"Fusion" does not belong on any list of things that will make an immediate difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Pledges are a joke. [...] funding for battery technology or fusion?
Yes. Pledges are a way to kick the responsibility down to future generations. However, I think we have enough funding for battery technology. And even fusion startups managed to raise dozens of millions. Contrary to governments, the private sector has seen the writing on the wall.
What we need is Carbon Takeback Obligations: https://www.biobasedpress.eu/2... [biobasedpress.eu]
Instead, Biden is handing out ever increasing oil drilling permits: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/13... [npr.org]
What is "Climate Credibility" anyway? (Score:2)
Largest part of BBB is CleanEnergy & Climat In (Score:2)
Here’s what’s in the Build Back Better legislation - the biggest spending bucket? Clean energy & climate investments at $555 billion
https://twitter.com/ElizLander... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is some democrats and all Republicans are against, so it keeps getting watered down.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Been there done that. We ended up throwing billions down black holes like Solyndra plus solar and battery production in China
Re:Largest part of BBB is CleanEnergy & Climat (Score:5, Informative)
The top web results suggest the net result was positive. Some fail, others don't. Net result: profit.
January 23, 2015
Remember Solyndra? The solar-panel manufacturing firm that defaulted on a guaranteed federal loan? The firm whose ’11 bankruptcy was spun by the Republicans as a metaphor for Obama socialist overreach?
"Turns out, Solyndra’s failure was basically a speed bump. Turns out, Obama’s energy department has thus far loaned $34 billion to a slew of clean-green startups, and defaulted on only $780 million – a loss rate of just 2.3 percent. And Solyndra’s default still accounts for most of that $780 million. All told, 20 clean-green projects, launched with Obama loans, are now operating and generating revenue. And the loan program, thanks to its ongoing collection of interest payments, is already $30 million in the black. "
Re:Largest part of BBB is CleanEnergy & Climat (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't that the same funding that got you Tesla and overall made money for the government?
UK going all in on nuclear (Score:4)
Re: UK going all in on nuclear (Score:2, Troll)
Why I don't take the "climate" activists seriously.
They scream about zeroing out emissions and going all electric, then they proceed to block and or actively shut down nuclear power plants. You know, the one proven, reliable, scalable zero-emissions (not just zero net ghg, but zero any emissions) technology there is.
And then they bitch about the environmental impact of wind turbines and the mines to make the batteries for when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine.
Retards. Every last one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's all a bunch of little nut job factions pursuing their own agendas. Stop teh nukes! Eat teh bugs! Self driving cars! Knock down the hydroelectric dams! And now climate change is a horse that they can all hitch their crazy wagons behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone who cares about the climate is anti-nuclear.
Re: UK going all in on nuclear (Score:2)
No, but most who hold any influence or prominence act like they are very much so.
Let me make an analogy you might understand. Not all Republicans believe that losing an election to a Democrat is automatically dispositive evidence of fraud. But most of the ones who have the spotlight act like they do.
So what's one to make of "generic environmentalist" or "generic Republican" eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: UK going all in on nuclear (Score:3, Insightful)
How are they going to build over a dozen nuclear power plants in 2030? They'll be hard up finishing one.
Re: UK going all in on nuclear (Score:5, Informative)
Construction experience gained from HPC along with developed supply chains. Antinuclear scumbags always complain about first of a kind construction time. Follow up construction projects are always faster since we have learned how to build them. Also Rolls Royce is going to be building SMR's in a factory.
Remember the fastest decarbonization efforts in world history involved nuclear energy(thanks France and Sweden)
Re: UK going all in on nuclear (Score:2)
How does knowhow for EPR construction help with SMR?
Seems to me HPC made the politicians gun shy about large EPRs, so they have moved on to the next money pit. Whether HPC could be a stepping stone, it doesn't seem it will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So even if we have antinuclear scumbags blocking us from saving lives, the UK will take the lead. UK plans fossil fuel-free power grid by 2035 using nuclear energy [aljazeera.com]
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Sorry needed a big belly laugh. I will wager you right now that the UK will not have a single new operational nuclear power plant by 2035 much less have used nuclear to achieve a fossil fuel free power grid. For the record that's 14 years away. No western nation has built a new nuclear power plant in 14 years from project approval this side of the millennium.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing that this was commitment was made by politicians. They are including the already-in-construction nuke at Hinkley: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-... [bbc.co.uk] - it'll supposedly be online in 2026 (although maybe let's say 2028 to be safe). The intention is that they'll also be able to build an almost exact replica called Sizewell C - although that'll be an entirely new project.
Hinkley will have taken 10 years to build (although let's say 12 to be safe), so inside your 14 year deadline - although they wo
Re: (Score:2)
Hinkley will have taken 10 years to build
No it won't. It will have taken 16-18. The announcement that Hinkley was selected as a site for a new reactor came in 2010 and at that point it was further ahead than this announcement is now which hasn't specified anything yet. It's a textbook example of what I'm talking about.
And that's assuming it will actually happen in that time frame. Many people have lost count the number of times Flamanville III has been said it would be online "next year". Sure they a French and probably just striking again, but o
Bullshit propaganda headline (Score:3, Insightful)
The world will not end in 10 years and the only chance to avert it is not a government power grab combined with a healthy dose of state-directed crony capitalism.
That is all.
Re:Bullshit propaganda headline (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is not ending in ten years, and nobody is proposing a government power grab to solve it (except some right-wing nut jobs, who keep shouting that no matter what the subject is).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Username checks out.
Honest Gov't Ad for COP26 (Score:2)
Informative and Foul-mouthed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
No credibility without nuclear fission power (Score:5, Informative)
No nation should be considered credible on lowering CO2 emissions if they cannot mention nuclear power in their plans. Germany should be the poster child for failing to meet CO2 emission goals while simultaneously abandoning nuclear fission power.
If you want lower CO2 emissions then you will build nuclear fission power plants. If you have no intention of lowering CO2 emissions then you build windmills, solar panels, and then complain loudly about how you are doing the same things over and over yet things are not changing.
I've seen governments pay a lot of money to many intelligent and educated people to come up with a solution on lower CO2 emissions. In every case the experts told the governments that paid them, and anyone that bothers to look at these publicly available reports, that without nuclear fission they will fail to lower CO2 emissions. It looks like at least the UK is taking this seriously and is making plans to build more nuclear power plants. Japan is doing this too but they had already discovered that without nuclear power they end up exporting a lot of wealth to import coal, and creating an air pollution problem, they'd use nuclear power regardless of CO2 emissions.
Actually I believe most nations will have to build more nuclear power plants regardless of the lower CO2 emissions. That's because without nuclear power the costs to produce electricity would just keep going up with the rarity of natural gas until they had to turn to nuclear fission or see their economy collapse.
We are going to see more nuclear power plants built all over the world very soon. What would make these people credible on lowering CO2 emissions is to see them mention that nuclear power as vital to this goal.
Re:Your cult isn't going to happen. (Score:5, Interesting)
Stop trying to make it happen.
I'm not going to make it happen. It is already happening. The USAF needs nuclear power to support their forward air bases. The USSF needs nuclear power for maintaining their mission of intelligence, surveillance, reconsecration, weather observation, navigation, and communications missions. The US Navy needs nuclear power for it's big ships, and soon it's not so big ships. This technology exists as land based training reactors for training. It takes only one small step to make these training reactors into operational reactors that power the bases. The Department of energy has four missions, developing new energy technologies to bring the USA to energy independence, to support the nuclear weapons capability of the US military, support the nuclear propulsion systems of the DOD, DHS, and NASA, and to manage the waste produced by these other missions. NASA has the mission to return men to the moon, and send men to Mars, and that will require nuclear propulsion. Part of this mission, which has overlap with DoD and DoE, is insitu resource utilization (ISRU) to produce rocket fuel on Mars for a return trip to Earth. DHS needs nuclear powered icebreakers to keep up with Russian and Chinese capability, as well as that of US Navy nuclear powered ships. DHS, DoE, and DoD have a mission o protect the nation's fuel supply in times of war. That will over lap with the NASA ISRU mission which means hydro carbon fuel synthesis hear on Earth.
This is happening. I don't have to wish it into coming. I don't have to write my congresscritter. This is happening and it is happening now. Future Ford class aircraft carriers will have some limited capability to produce jet fuel on board. It's a prototype now but this will grow in size and efficiency in time, potentially removing the need to bring fuel to the carrier fleet. This technology will come to the nuclear powered USCG icebreakers so they can produce fuel for the aircraft and drop off fuel at remote research stations. NASA will use this to produce RP-1 on Earth to test for use on Mars, and may never buy kerosene fuel again.
With all these nuclear engineers from the DoD, DoE, DHS, NASA, and private contractors that feed these agencies someone at some point is going to offer this technology to the public. The federal government will practically flood the market with nuclear engineers and technicians. The people making these nuclear reactor parts for the military will offer them to the civil nuclear power industry. The powers that be in the government will want to bring to the public safe, abundant, and plentiful energy to the public. This means civil nuclear power plants will be built. First the employees will be from the military and NASA but later the power plants will attract people from college programs wanting to go to the military, join NASA, or be part of a private space program.
We will see civil nuclear power plants built in the USA by the dozens to meet demands for electricity and for trained nuclear engineers and technicians to feed government programs.
This is happening. There is no stopping it. We ca maybe slow it down or help it along but we have so many people now with these overlapping goals that someone somewhere is going to bring civil nuclear power back that the only question is when it will happen and how quickly will it build.
This isn't even about the environment. This is not even about nuclear power. This is about Mars, and nuclear power is the means to that end. The first person to synthesize RP-1 with nuclear power gets to the first milestone. The first to build a vacuum rated nuclear thermal rocket gets the second milestone. To get these to happen means a lot of people will be building nuclear power plants. They will be small, and mass produced. The "rejects" will end up powering military bases and/or as training units. The successes will be launched into space.
We know this will happen because that is what these people are telling
Credibility? WHAT credibility? (Score:2)
Especially with Biden, there's no such thing.
He's already been shown to lie.
Hell, he's so senile that he's admitted to reneging on political deals BEFORE THE DEAL IS EVEN SIGNED!
Right now, with the current governmental regime in place, if they tell you "Water is wet." you'd best test it. Just in case.
Dementia Joe speaks again (Score:2)
On electric cars:
"When you buy an electric vehicle, you can go across America on a single tank of gas figuratively speaking. It's not gas. You plug it in."
https://twitter.com/TheFirston... [twitter.com]
Historical perspective (Score:2)
Perm - 900 ppm CO2 (3 times the pre-industrial level) average temperature +16 C (2 C above modern level)
Triassic - 1750 ppm (6 times the pre-industrial level) average temperature +17 C (3 C above modern level)
Jurassic - 1950 ppm (7 times the pre-industrial level) average temperature +16.5 C (3 C above modern level)
Chalk - 1700 ppm (6 times the pre-industrial level) average temperature +18 C (4 C above modern level)
Paleogene - 500 ppm (2 times the pre-industrial level) average temperature +18 C (4
To fuck-off (Score:2)
No-one will tell the USA to fuck-off, so there is no incentive for the USA to meet emissions targets. Other countries see the lack of political will and also ignore emissions targets.
Re:"Credibility" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The choice function is broken [Re:"Credibility"] (Score:2)
And before you say it, no, I'm not a fan of Joe Biden either. I can't believe out of a country of 330 million people the best we could find was another Clinton, and dumb and dumber. 2024 isn't shaping up to look any better.
The system for choosing candidates is broken.
In fact, it's a well known mathematical truth that choice functions work poorly when there are more than two choices to pick from. In the worst case you get Condorcet's paradox, where A is preferred over B, B is preferred over C, and C preferred over A. (Yes, turns out that seems illogical, but it is nevertheless possible.)
Hey! (Score:3)
JoeBiden is the best the USA can do!
2025 is quite likely the turning point in history people will say was when the USA died. I'll say I told you so 25 years ago; I want to be wrong...
One could stall it quite a while if we can maintain our sorry condition long enough for the bulk of boomers to die off. It won't stop it, just delay. Way too much change is required to change course and more generations get locked into the familiar slowing down progress and taking "risks."
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see I have much faith in your knowledge of US history if you think our current status is that bad. Our country has seen far worse then what we're seeing today.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see I have much faith in your knowledge of US history if you think our current status is that bad. Our country has seen far worse then what we're seeing today.
I dunno. As a non-American, it looks to me like your country just recently closely avoided a banana republic style coup de tat. If the GOP had control of the house it may well have succeeded. Was good to see your courts remained untainted, but history shows they would be the first thing to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Snork. Since 2015? A country founded on slavery, genocide and conquest that has been the #1 overthrower of democracies has never had any credibility.
That's your TDS talking, as you could give him four terms in office and he wouldn't come close to the right-wing evils committed by the Obiden Administration. Which deported f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, the Biden who spent almost 50 years in public office and only ever managed to screw things up.
You mean, the 50 years over which the Republicans held the presidency for 72% of the time?
If you're saying things are screwed up, I'd say blame the administration in power.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For the past 60 years Democrats held a majority or filibuster power in the US Senate. If the nation is screwed up then there's plenty to put the blame on both parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The power of the executive branch was actually quite limited until Congress got in the habit of creating executive agencies for everything. It used to take a constitutional amendment to declare an intoxicating substance illegal, now the DEA can just declare something illegal and it's a felony to possess it.
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing shade on people due to their having recognized disabilities is so 1980s. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Most popular president ever, yet so many chants of... "Let's go Brandon!"
I'm not sure, is this intended seriously? Biden is not the least popular president of all time (Donald Trump and Gerald Ford both had lower popularity ratings at this point in their terms), but he's well below 50% approval rating; by no means "most popular president ever".
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine similar results if Trump attended a BET awards ceremony.
Re:Biden's legacy (Score:5, Informative)
Passing multiple trillion dollar bills of tax payers money to corporate cronies and bankrupting the country, that's the only legacy he's going to be remembered for.
Here's how taxpayer money is funding Hertz's purchase and use of Tesla vehicles
https://www.wsj.com/articles/b... [wsj.com]
"The more you look behind corporate and government press releases these days, the more you learn about their mutual benefit society. We wrote Tuesday about the many subsidies for Tesla’s electric cars, but it turns out there’s also a pot of subsidy gold behind the Hertz decision to buy 100,000 Teslas for its car-rental fleet.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk says he isn’t giving Hertz a discount on the reported $4.2 billion order. But he doesn’t need to because the House reconciliation spending bill includes a 30% tax credit for “qualified commercial electric vehicles.”
The text doesn’t clearly define what is a “qualified commercial electric” vehicle, but our sources say Hertz’s Teslas would likely make the cut. The credit could save Hertz $1.26 billion and make a Tesla almost as cheap for Hertz to buy as a Toyota Camry."
Re:Biden's legacy (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people are ok with taxpayer subsidizing electric cars.
Re:Biden's legacy (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people are ok with taxpayer subsidizing electric cars.
Subsidizing them for PEOPLE not corporations so they can increase profits
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point, though pushing out ICE vehicles from corporate fleets still has some taxpayer benefits, in reduced health burdens and other social externalities.
But the far greater EV tax incentives for corporations than for individuals are a nasty burn.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand it's good that Hertz are buying EVs. On the other hand Tesla is not a great choice for this.
Tesla use proprietary chargers so the money won't get folded back into developing open charging networks.
Tesla owners are probably not too happy that Tesla is going to become associated with rentals and taxis either.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla use proprietary chargers so the money won't get folded back into developing open charging networks.
That is unfortunate.
Re:Biden's legacy (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people are ok with taxpayer subsidizing electric cars.
Usually the pro-EV rebate folks are people who otherwise earn enough that they'd still be able to afford the car without a subsidy, if they tightened up their household budget a bit. EV credits do absolutely nothing to help low-income people who are driving around in a gas guzzling clunker, because they can't afford anything better.
If you're spending public money to green up the transportation sector, it should go to initiatives where you'll get the best bang for your buck. Hell, forget the transportation sector - the money would probably be better spent in terms of carbon reduction, by just giving away LED bulbs for peoples' homes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're spending public money to green up the transportation sector, it should go to initiatives where you'll get the best bang for your buck. Hell, forget the transportation sector - the money would probably be better spent in terms of carbon reduction, by just giving away LED bulbs for peoples' homes.
Electric cars also move one of the biggest sources of pollution out of densely populated city centres. There's more to pollution than just carbon dioxide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never understood why all these climate conferences seem to be in person events. You would think that the people putting these things on would see the optics and shoot for a videoconference only event.
I guess it can't be any worse than the US "climate czar" who has his own private 747.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need a sailboat to videoconference now? Wow, what a waste of resources. I thought your usual computer would do that. I guess I have a lot to learn about this climate change thing.
Taking a private jet to a climate conference shows that they don't give a damn about the climate. If the conference has to happen in person, fly commercial. Owning a private 747 means you are emitting 33 tons of CO2 per km, after the first 250 km (that is 24 tons for liftoff and landing). Having a person who uses this to
Re: (Score:2)
A lot less fun than Glasgow but a lot more meaningful.
Bashing heads with a glass club containing a little Irn Bru is a blast let me tell you. A Glaswegian I used to know commenting on the rather solid construction of the bottles noted "they know their customers".