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
How far did you get in this article?
The article sites examples such as the left dragging the party into supporting:
I could go on. Read the article.
We’re not transitioning to green tech, we’re doing what was previously known as the “all of the above” plan, which is among the worst possible options. We’re expanding renewables, but we’re also in the midst of one of the largest expansions of Oil and Gas development, and specifically pipelines and drilling on public lands, in the history of the country, if not the largest overall.
We could build a hundred trillion dollars worth of renewable energy, but it literally does nothing but put MORE carbon into the atmosphere via production unless we couple it with drawing down fossil fuel usage.
The point being, if you think we’re not doing enough now, you should’ve seen how little the DNC was going to do before the left of the party started making a big stink.
Thus why it is inherently impossible for us to make meaningful enough changes to prevent the absolutely worst case scenario under our current systems of governance, which afford far too much power to individuals to diverge from the desires of their constituency with no meaningful avenues for redressing grievance or punishing politicians who refuse the will of their constituency.
If your only solution is to vote in more left democrats, millions of people will suffer and die from climate related catastrophe, and we will not likely leave a habitable planet to our grandchildren.
You * scratches arm * got anymore of that truth?
You are completely incorrect.
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/07/12/new-study-evaluates-climate-impact-ira#:~:text=The%20research%20teams%20found%20that,journal%20Science%20on%20June%2029.
This study, among others, not only confirms a reduction in emissions, but estimates more than 40% of a reduction by 2035 based on 2005 numbers.
When I was in college, my goal was to work for a green energy company. I didn't think that was realistic for a chemical engineer for at least 15 years at best. And now, about 5 years after graduating? I'm working for a company that generates green energy and is also decarbonizing other industries.
I know doomposting has its place, but it should at least be factual.
And how does that jive with record numbers of new oil and gas development leases? Do you not think those will raise emissions? Why are we putting trillions into new fossil fuel pipelines and production if we’re lowering our emissions? Not to mention that our emissions did not fall 2 OR 4% last year, they went UP 1.4%. The trend of emissions going down ended at the end of 2020.
The IRA wasn't passed until more than halfway through the year. I'm not surprised that our emissions didn't fall, given the bill wasn't even 6 months old, and all government actions are lagging -- i.e, the effects of a given bill aren't seen immediately, but in the future. This should be a readily apparent observation.
In addition, there's two other factors you aren't accounting for here. It's possible for emissions to go positive for a few years and we still end up with a 40% reduction in 2035. Because of the lagging nature I mentioned, I'd actually expect this to be the case. Development and construction of renewable energy facilities will lead to net increases in emissions at first, but once they power on, they'll cut our emissions significantly.
Second, it is possible to have increases in emissions from oil and gas and still have an overall reduction in emissions. With oil and gas increasing emissions, we need to more deeply cut emissions somewhere else. If new oil and gas plants add +10% emissions, but renewable energy reduces our total emissions by 30%, we're still -20% overall.
I have a problem with your final but of analysis there.
If fossil fuels raise our emissions 10%, they’ve raised our emissions 10%. Renewables don’t lower our emissions, they just don’t raise them anymore. If instead of building new O&G infrastructure we were decommissioning facilities, then the added energy output from renewables could be used to replace O&G, which would bring down our emissions not because we built renewable, but because we lessened O&G. However, building more infrastructure will lead to increased emissions, regardless of the amount of renewable infrastructure we build.
I’ll wait and see if your lagging indicator works out, but in the meantime, all available data shows our emissions have risen so far this year, likely due to a combination of said increased infrastructure, and severe heat waves prompting increased use of AC.
Yeah the heat wave isn't doing us any favors at all, except possibly making it undeniable that climate change is here and action needs to be taken. Even Republicans now are proposing a solution. It starts and ends with planning trees, but baby steps I guess.
You could very well be right that the projected emissions are incorrect and currently overestimate it. We just don't know. I prefer to be an optimist and look for reasonable explanations for the claim to still be true while addressing the odd situation (here, the rise in emissions).
Regarding the oil and gas development itself, I have a theory. I think the idea may be to smoothen the transition by still maintaining plentiful and cheap energy as we bring renewables online. Up front then we'd have higher emissions, but when possible without raising energy price, we'd phase it out. From the perspective of governing the whole country, I can understand that philosophy.
I just hope my charitable interpretation is correct and not being overly generous.
That study is talking about the US, it's not talking about the world. If the US has done all of this work, and yet climate change is STILL happening and we're dealing with it right now then the US is not the problem.
But why isn't it working? Because China is the biggest polluter
https://world101.cfr.org/global-era-issues/climate-change/who-releases-most-greenhouse-gases
China is not responsible for the majority of the carbon already currently in the atmosphere. WE ARE
All I can affect is US emissions. It also rubs me the wrong way to be angry at China and them off for industrializing with high emission technology, after the West has finished their industrializing.
That said, climate science doesn't take fairness and equity into account. Do you have ideas on how the US and China could work together to reduce emissions without us pulling up the ladder behind us?
Thank you. And great name.
I read the article twice, chief.
“The left has won a lot more than “nothing” from engaging with the Democratic Party.”
“The left” in this instance is talking about actual leftists, and I would love anyone to point to me where the Democrats have done ANYTHING that LEFTISTS want. What have they done that fundamentally changes anything? What have they done that hasn’t been and won’t be stricken down by the courts? What have they done for labor organization?
Fuck the democrats.
You should read the article then.
February 2023:
https://www.reuters.com/business/white-house-renews-pressure-railroads-over-paid-sick-leave-2023-02-09/
"White House renews pressure on railroads over paid sick leave"
June 2023:
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
"After months of negotiations, the IBEW’s Railroad members at four of the largest U.S. freight carriers finally have what they’ve long sought but that many working people take for granted: paid sick days.
Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us,” Russo said. “He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave.”
Cue leftists: "Yes our stated goals were achieved and objections overcome, but it didn't arrived perfectly packaged with a bow on top looking like our ideal utopia, therefore all problems with progress are clearly the Democrats fault."
Seriously, please stop. Progress is never going to occur in exactly the way you think it should. It's still progress. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Democrats: "Better than nothing" (TM)
Yes. That's how politics work in actual reality.
Maybe for the peasants, but the rich get everything they want at lightning speeds.
4 sick days, and the ability to sacrifice earned vacation days for 3 more. You really think they would have had to settle for that if they were allowed to strike? It’s not even close to what they asked for, and they had significantly more leverage than the company until the Biden admin stepped in and defanged the union entirely.
The union itself reports this agreement as a win. How is that not enough for you?
They specifically asked the president to not interfere with their right to strike. Once he had taken their rights away from them, they lost nearly all leverage they had, and so the agreement negotiated is better than they would’ve been able to get themselves, but worse than if their rights hadn’t been infringed. Of course it’s a win, it’s more than the 0 they had before, but it’s not sufficient, and still leaves our railroads dangerously understaffed, and does nothing about the other components the workers had demanded, such as the points based attendance systems that are themselves leading to significant safety concerns among railworkers.
Prove it then. You're moving the goalposts here, so explain why you're so sure that they can be moved. What evidence is there that the rail companies, who were refusing to give any sick days, would have capitulated to more than what they've agreed to now?
For that matter, I'm not convinced that the public would overall support the striking workers. If towns lost electricity, heating, and/or clean drinking water because of delays caused by the strike, I couldn't see them standing behind the workers. Even though of course the rail companies are to blame.
Which would a rail company rather do, lose hundreds of millions of dollars a week? Or, negotiate with the union? Why does the public need to support the strike? The public didn’t support the strikes in the 1890s-1930s that won the 40 hour week, overtime, minimum wage, and various other labor benefits. They were too busy being propagandized by the complicit media of their day.
If that logic worked, every strike would instantly win because the company loses out on millions of dollars. Writers have been striking for quite a while now and you don't see any capitulation. Just losing money isn't enough.
And this is why the public opinion matters. If the company thinks they can wait out the strike, they're going to choose that. In that time period, public opinion can either strengthen or weaken their position.
This isn't the 1890s-1930s. The head of the factory isn't onsite when the workers decide to go on strike. The head of the factory isn't unfathomably richer than the workers. Income inequality has escalated to the point that owners aren't going to feel the hit of a strike immediately. The rich CEOs can afford to wait without their lives being affected. It's cheaper for them to work towards the end of an unsuccessful strike than to capitulate.
Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I think the solution is actually nationalizing industries, at least partially. Rail service has become too crucial to our way of life to let a private business handle it. We're seeing how they abuse their position to neglect workers and enrich themselves.
Yeah, I’m with you there, though I’m likely further to the left than you, I believe all industries should either be nationalized or socialized depending on its function.
Ok, now on this point I agree with you completely. If losing a service will do that much damage to the public, then that service should be socialized.
I think we'd be much better served trying to make that happen than argue if a strike would've been more successful or not. At the end of the day, we'll never know the answer there. It's better we agree that good was done. We disagree on if that was the most good possible or not, but we agree it was good. We're better off trying to do more good than figure out if we maximized that previous good. One in the hand is worth two in the bush after all.
Crushing a labor strike so that Dems could negotiate better terms for the owners. Truly a win for the working class. You did it Libs!
Oh come on. Better terms for owners would have been doing absolutely nothing and leaving the rail workers with zero paid sick leave.
Public opinion is a reality whether you like it or not. An unpopular strike that disrupted regular people's lives might sound like a great idea in your utopia, but here in the real world what it's likely to accomplish is support for the suppression of strikes. You can't FORCE class consciousness onto people. You can try, but it's not going to work.
The union itself is reporting this as a win. How is that not enough for you?
No, that would be the BEST terms for the owners. That wasn’t an option, because that could potentially lead to people in the streets. They made minor concessions to placate the workers and so Dems could say they did something.
Are you seriously saying that the union never would have gotten more than this if the strike hadn’t been crushed? This is as good as it get for the workers, right? The Dems stepping in was of zero benefit to the workers.
As far as the Union saying it’s a win….what the fuck else were they going to say? They had no cards left to play when the strike was crushed. The leaders were basically forced to accept this and say thank you. That’s how shit works under capitalism.
Uh...they could say "this is not what we wanted, this is bullshit, but we'll take it if we have to" because there's utterly not one thing stopping them from saying that.
Do you not understand that the initial demands from the union were MORE than they actually wanted to get in the end? Because that's how negotiations work. What everybody is demanding in the opening round is not what anyone actually expects to get in the end.
The union itself reporting this as a win tells me that this is where they were hoping to end up, or very close to it
But, but, you gotta vote for Biden or Trump wins. /s