Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
So they've frozen the EPA out of the clean-power-plan-like game. A David Wallace Wells op-ed (by NYT subscription, not in the paper, at least yet) cites a calculation that we're at a whole 9% of the Biden administration's GHG reduction goal.
So what is going on with a reconciliation bill? The once-a-year opportunity, maybe the last one for years for some climate sanity, and nothing happening? What would be wrong about going with the $550 B (10 years) renewables portion of the now-defunct BBB? It would be safe from the lunatic Supreme Court, and Manchin was ok with that as long as it didn't directly impact fossil fuels -- which it doesn't.
If Manchin is for it, then it's clearly anemic and useless....
He wasn't for it, but I heard him say (on CBS Face the Nation) that his bottom line was not attacking fossil fuels directly, and it was reported he wouldn't oppose the renewables $ in the bill.
It's the only game in town, and $550B to pick up the momentum on renewables isn't chump change.
Thanks, Crash; I appreciate that you get how dangerous the GHG situation is. It's a bit weird how so many in our age cohort either deny it or don't care, when you'd think the people who've been around long enough to watch it unfold for decades would be more cognizant and caring about it.
Maybe a lot of people in our age cohort just can't (or don't want to) see much beyond their own back yards. What happens in the universe is totally beyond their control or area of responsibility.
After all, as Fox "news" commentators keep saying, "well yes, the planet is getting hotter, but there's no proof that humans are responsible for any of this". Well if it ain't the humans, then that leaves us with-
God (or the gods) make the planet hotter. There's undoubtedly something somewhere in the (Bible/Koran/Whatever) that predicts all of this anyway, so that's just the way it goes, and what's the use of thinking about it? In the US, unless the Constitution specifically mentions governmental responsibility for climate change, the Supreme Court seems to think that no one is authorized to deal with the problem.
Humans sure have evolved impressively since the stone age.
Part of the issue with I think Boomer and older generations and climate change is people don’t like being told they lived their lives incorrectly, that all that gas guzzling wrecked the planet. Acknowledging that is painful and they take it as a personal rebuke of their way of life, especially since they can’t go back in time and undo it. So denial is preferable to them. It doesn’t help of course that there are incredibly powerful industries with a vested interest in promoting that denial.
Moreover, the idea of perpetual GDP growth being essential is linked to fossil fuel consumption. Whether the link between GDP growth and fossil fuels can be severed and we can still have growth but with cleaner fuels and building materials—plastics are also part of the problem—will remain an unanswered question until we can pass legislation like the Green New Deal. But that will never happen in the current political climate. Alternatively, we could stop viewing perpetual GDP growth as the most important measure of economic and societal health. Neither party supports that mindset, though the planet’s environment might benefit from it.
Agree with OJ there. But when natural disasters strike such as hurricanes and tornadoes, the citizens come to seek help from the federal and local help. What do they think FEMA, Red Cross and others are created for?
Comments
So what is going on with a reconciliation bill? The once-a-year opportunity, maybe the last one for years for some climate sanity, and nothing happening? What would be wrong about going with the $550 B (10 years) renewables portion of the now-defunct BBB? It would be safe from the lunatic Supreme Court, and Manchin was ok with that as long as it didn't directly impact fossil fuels -- which it doesn't.
So why not do at least that?
It's the only game in town, and $550B to pick up the momentum on renewables isn't chump change.
After all, as Fox "news" commentators keep saying, "well yes, the planet is getting hotter, but there's no proof that humans are responsible for any of this". Well if it ain't the humans, then that leaves us with-
God (or the gods) make the planet hotter. There's undoubtedly something somewhere in the (Bible/Koran/Whatever) that predicts all of this anyway, so that's just the way it goes, and what's the use of thinking about it? In the US, unless the Constitution specifically mentions governmental responsibility for climate change, the Supreme Court seems to think that no one is authorized to deal with the problem.
Humans sure have evolved impressively since the stone age.
Moreover, the idea of perpetual GDP growth being essential is linked to fossil fuel consumption. Whether the link between GDP growth and fossil fuels can be severed and we can still have growth but with cleaner fuels and building materials—plastics are also part of the problem—will remain an unanswered question until we can pass legislation like the Green New Deal. But that will never happen in the current political climate. Alternatively, we could stop viewing perpetual GDP growth as the most important measure of economic and societal health. Neither party supports that mindset, though the planet’s environment might benefit from it.