If only it wasn't being cherry picked to neuter the EPA while Border Patrol and ICE take it upon themselves to act as police forces on domestic soil.
EDIT: and it's gone. From #1 on the front page to page 14 or so in about 35 minutes. To be honest, that took a lot longer than I expected.
Democrats are not banning everything related to fossil fuels, nor do they disrupt public life. They have simply applied subsidies to encourage environmental friendly choices. Which is exactly the middle ground you are asking for.
what does "impose its ideology" mean?
they were protesting for the government to uphold their own promises and use low hanging fruits which are even beneficial beyond reducing green house gases.
I'm still not sure what the climate change denialists see as the goal of "big climate". All of the money and profit is on the side of continuing to fuck the climate. All of the projects to alleviate the problem are expensive and have very little profit to be gained, but apparently it's a conspiracy of academics on minimum wage in various university research centers who are determined to take the money from our wonderful oil and mining benefactors (who have nothing but our best interests at heart). What's worse is they want to push technology that gives us energy for free! Must be a bunch of communists or something!
The rest of the world is also pretty much on board with this clean air and climate change stuff as it turns out people generally like clean air, so if this sticks at some point the only logical next step would be to compel US to stop polluting the world.
If I understand correctly, this also removes EPA ability to regulate car emissions, arguing that it will allow for cheaper cars. Why would US public really wants newly made clunkers on their cities? Polluting cars are horrible city life quality downgrade that even the rich can't escape.
Also, will this allow to put the banned due to the dieselgate VW vehicles back on the roads?
But it will increase US dependency on foreign countries in the long term. EVs are the future and if US manufacturers aren’t working on them then they’ll continue to lose market share to foreign companies.
In the rest of the world the idea that you can just just pump as much as smoke you like and it will magically disappear isn't popular. Maybe because they all had some polluting industry around that made them miserable or maybe because they live in dirty overcrowded cities and noticed that smog isn't pleasant or maybe because they don't have much fossil energy sources, they are generally not skeptical of the idea that "not polluting is good". Just as with vaccines or abortion, climate change or simply the desire to live in a clean environment isn't a divisive topic in most of the world.
So its going to be 8B people trying to compel 0.5B people to live in clean environments and take care of the output of their industries. I think the 8B will be able to do that one way or another.
Are you sure about that? Or you mistaking the world's opinion for that of the out-of-touch elites living in their lofty ivory towers? Because in the world, outside the media controlled by these elites, I see the exact opposite: it turns out THE WORLD generally like electricity at 2 cents per kwh (not 50 cents how elites like it), no matter how much carbon dioxide it emits.
When you start thinking in more abstract terms, growth v.s. climate change associated risks is a false dichotomy.
Of course people at first all they care is to get out of a bad situation like poverty but once they are out of poverty they start caring for other things like the future of their children. Apart of fossil energy producing countries like USA/Russia/Australia, people don't pretend that pollution is no biggie.
China's bad air around the time of their Olympics is pointed to as being a turning point that could have toppled the government if not dealt with.
Slightly uniquely they seem to have discovered a way to become even richer by cleaning up their pollution, the timing for EV and renewables working out well, and presumably many other nations will try to follow that pattern going forward.
Even just buying these things from China will make both sides of the trade richer compared with dirtier alternatives.
In all, the case for US being the real villain here keeps getting stronger and stronger.
Right voters. Ditch this orange madman and those who seek to follow in his footsteps. We need to focus on the adverse health impacts of this gas as priority beyond the impact on the greenhouse effect.
https://open.substack.com/pub/minimallysustained/p/beyond-th...
You're arguing the right side but you're using the wrong arguments. This is actually counter productive.
I suspect that the "Champion of Beautiful, Clean Coal" is just living up to his side of the contract.[0]
[0] https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/budget...
typedef_struct•1h ago
baq•1h ago
cucumber3732842•1h ago
Now obviously they were bad for the environment all along, but I don't think it's a coincidence that nothing was done about CFCs until the 3rd world got good at making them cheap.
The joke is getting a little out of date though since the new stuff is hydrocarbons and CO2 (and you can't patent those).