this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
-7 points (39.4% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3572 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This summer has emerged as the warmest in recorded history, following last year's record-breaking levels of global fossil fuel consumption which continue to escalate the climate crisis. Amid this alarming scenario, former President Barack Obama and his top White House strategist, David Axelrod, have taken to public platforms to decry climate inaction, despite their past contributions to the exacerbation of this crisis. The pair chose to escalate fossil fuel production during their time in power rather than prioritize climate policy, even as they enjoyed a significant influx of campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Obama's 2018 boast about the unprecedented fossil fuel boom under his presidency, advised by Axelrod, highlights the contradiction between their past actions and their current advocacy for climate action.

While they now publicly advocate for climate policy, their refusal to acknowledge their past contributions to the climate crisis stands in stark contrast. This posturing risks rendering their recent statements as mere lip service, undermining the accountability needed for the United States to adhere to its climate commitments. This contradiction was underscored this week when President Joe Biden acknowledged climate change as an "existential threat," but refrained from declaring a climate emergency or limiting fossil fuel extraction. This strategy, initially adopted by Obama and Axelrod, could potentially be reformed if they were to openly accept their past roles in escalating the crisis and used their significant influence to advocate for stronger action from Biden and other Democratic leaders to adhere to the Paris Agreement.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Yep, and the harmful policies from moderate Dems have continued

As the United States pours billions into the project of capturing carbon, though, it has few plans in place to ensure this gargantuan build-out of new infrastructure performs the heroic tasks that climate models say it will need to.

There are also few guardrails against letting polluters have a say in how, exactly, that infrastructure gets built. Last summer, the Texas Railroad Commission, or RRC—the state’s oil and gas regulator—applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for the ability to oversee a key part of this process: the wells where carbon dioxide gets injected into rock formations deep underground for storage. Granting the application would mean that rather than the EPA making sure the wells are safe, the responsibility would switch to the RRC.

The Biden EPA has encouraged states to take charge of the permitting process, inviting them to apply for $50 million provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act to administer that process. But last week, Texas Representatives Lloyd Doggett and Joaquin Castro, both Democrats, penned a letter to the EPA encouraging it to reject the RRC’s application.

“It would simplify matters to just send money directly to Exxon and ask them to self-report if they feel like,” Doggett told me over the phone, noting the uncapped donations the commission’s entirely Republican members receive from the fossil fuel industry.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

She really hates President Obama, all her articles lately are about her hatred of him.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Calling out neo-liberals is an important step in advancing progressivism.

It's not about hating neo-liberals. It's about acknowledging and condemning the deadly consequences of their conservative-friendly behavior.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

And? Fuck the Drone King.