this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
394 points (96.0% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4620 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Because, like a lot of Biden policies, they are wins on paper but have little to no impact on voters daily lives.

Example:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-biden-administration-has-taken-more-climate-action-than-any-other-in-history

"The Biden administration is the first to embrace the goal of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury in order to stabilize global temperatures at 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.* That means that the Biden administration’s interim target—cutting U.S. carbon pollution to half of peak levels by 2030—requires reducing annual carbon pollution nearly four times faster than the Obama administration’s interim target did.** Ambitious policy goals drive ambitious policy change."

Sounds great, right? But all he did was set a goal. Are we making progress to that goal? 🤷‍♂️ Is that goal even achievable? 🤷‍♂️ 2030 is only 6 years away, how are we doing right now? 🤷‍♂️

It's meaningless babble to claim this as an achievement if you can't point to a tangible change in the numbers.

No matter who wins in 2024, they aren't going to be President in 2030. If Trump wins in '24, or another Republican wins in '28, this goal is out the window.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 46 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, revoked the Keystone Pipeline permit, created a 13 million acre federal petroleum reserve for Alaskan wildlife, greatly increased oil site lease cost, signed $7B in solar subsidies, enacted the Inflation Reduction act to support clean energy…

[–] ZeroCool@vger.social 35 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes, but you see, if you ignore all of that... Then Biden hasn't done anything and it's all just "meaningless babble!"

[–] HWK_290@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. How dare he set goals and then take incremental steps to achieve them? The nerve!

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I demand that Biden solve the climate crisis by personally eating ten babies every day.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Increased efficiency standards on cars, home appliances, industry. Created new permitting rules to streamline new transmission lines. Huge investment in rail

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Great points. Thank you! I’ll add them to my list.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That’s how these efforts work - they start as a goal. It gets announced after enough support signs on, and they get the policies and money together, then they start spinning up the agencies and addressing the problems and . . . it’s how big things work.

If you want to declare something and have it immediately be so, you have to do it in a videogame.

If you’re worried that we won’t get far before idiot christofascist qultists fuck it up, well. Welcome to the party pal.jpg. Don’t boo - vote!

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What I'm saying is, if you want the voters to notice, you have to actually do something. Setting a goal is nothing. Then they go "look at what we did!" yeah, you haven't done ANYTHING yet.

Another example, all the EV chargers...

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/05/congress-ev-chargers-billions-00129996

It's great to have a goal to build charging stations. It's not a WIN until you can point to tangible progress.

How many built? Last I checked it was around 9? How many are in permitting? 🤷‍♂️ How many are actively being constructed? 🤷‍♂️

Don't tout all the things you've "done" when you haven't actually done anything yet.

"Look at me! I set a goal to lose 175 pounds by August!"

"Can you actually lose 5 pounds a day every day for 36 days?"

"🤷‍♂️ But hey! I set the goal! That's just as good!"

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The impact of the IRA on climate change can be studied by the same models that predict future climate change.

In other words, claims that the IRA doesn't affect climate change are as scientifically baseless as claims that global warming is harmless.

Either you believe scientific models or you don't.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Yet, investing in that gym membership and researching better nutrition habits are significant progress, even before you start losing weigh

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sounds great, right? But all he did was set a goal. Are we making progress to that goal? 🤷‍♂️ Is that goal even achievable? 🤷‍♂️ 2030 is only 6 years away, how are we doing right now? 🤷‍♂️

These are all questions that have quantifiable answers yet you chose not to find those answers. Perfectly encapsulating the point of OP.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'll tell you the answers: "No. No. Not so great."

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

"Mild weather decreased emissions from the residential and commercial sectors" - Not policy related.

"Industrial CO2 emissions remained unchanged in 2023 as industrial production growth slowed" - Growth slowed, but emissions are unchanged, meaning we would have had more industrial emissions if growth had not slowed.

"Transportation sector emissions remained unchanged between 2022 and 2023, as increased consumption of some petroleum products offset decreases in others"

Six years to go! Answers are the same, no, no, and not so good.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

It should be because, like a lot of Biden policies, the on paper win is actually shoveling tons of taxpayer money to the individuals and institutions who have caused the underlying problem he claims to be solving (see also; basically everything Biden has done with police accountability), money fossil fuel companies are going to plow right into lobbying and PR work to further ensure nobody can have a rational conversation about what our country is doing, but, yeah, you're probably right that for the vast majority of voters it's just that they don't see it in their daily lives at all