4 ms·

It's hard to avoid the obvious similarities between parties. A Republican claims climate change isn't happening, or isn't human caused, or isn't a big deal, or

by Syonyk 5y ago

It's hard to avoid the obvious similarities between parties. A Republican claims climate change isn't happening, or isn't human caused, or isn't a big deal, or we'll solve it somehow, and does nothing. A Democrat claims climate change is the biggest issue facing humanity, it's a huge deal, it's all our fault, we have to take control of the economy to solve it, and... then does nothing. Biden's plans didn't even hold up in the face of the risk of slightly increased gas prices before he was asking OPEC to do us a solid and pump more, please. They at least had the good sense to tell him to solve his own problems.

JediWing 5y ago
I appreciate what you're saying -- that the end result of a Democratic majority Congress, in addition to a Democratic President -- is the same. However, I do think it's unfair not to acknowledge 2 points: - The executive isn't all-powerful - The Senate has the slimmest possible majority, with 2 caucusing members hesitant to do anything without the other party purely because of optics Add to that: - Progressive wings of the Democratic party have come up with comprehensive climate plans - Democrats do tend to set emissions reductions goals, while Republican tend to undo those emission goals. I think it's unfair to say that both sides are the same on this issue, basically because two members of the Senate Democratic caucus are indifferent on the issue, even though darn near 100% of the Republican party is opposed to any action on climate change.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I agree, but this is a very small consolation to me. In particular, we're talking about a $3.5T budget, of which only a small amount goes to tackling climate issues and even those provisions are largely symbolic rather than serious. If Democrats were serious about climate, I would expect to see a full-court press on carbon tax (which actually generates revenue) with the social issues put on hold--because as important as social issues are, climate change is an existential threat. Imagine if we were invaded by the Chinese or Russians or aliens for that matter--would we prioritize social issues (perhaps with some half-hearted, billion-dollar gesture toward addressing the invasion), or would we sideline them to deal with the existential threat?
  - Syonyk 5y ago
    > ...or would we sideline them to deal with the existential threat? Covid says, "We'd fight over whose fault the invasion was to try and make sure the other guy got the blame." Just like every other dying empire seems to manage on the way down.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      Absolutely agreed. Why actually do something when we can deflect to the other side? The partisans will console themselves with the knowledge that they chose the better side while the world burns around them.
      - angelzen 5y ago
        The fossil fuel momentum is gargantuan, propelled by a growing population hungry for creature's comforts. Politicians will do what politicians do, take credit for the direction in which the wind blows. Doubtful they have any meaningful influence. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...

by Syonyk 5y ago

JediWing 5y ago

I appreciate what you're saying -- that the end result of a Democratic majority Congress, in addition to a Democratic President -- is the same. However, I do think it's unfair not to acknowledge 2 points: - The executive isn't all-powerful - The Senate has the slimmest possible majority, with 2 caucusing members hesitant to do anything without the other party purely because of optics Add to that: - Progressive wings of the Democratic party have come up with comprehensive climate plans - Democrats do tend to set emissions reductions goals, while Republican tend to undo those emission goals. I think it's unfair to say that both sides are the same on this issue, basically because two members of the Senate Democratic caucus are indifferent on the issue, even though darn near 100% of the Republican party is opposed to any action on climate change.

throwaway894345 5y ago
I agree, but this is a very small consolation to me. In particular, we're talking about a $3.5T budget, of which only a small amount goes to tackling climate issues and even those provisions are largely symbolic rather than serious. If Democrats were serious about climate, I would expect to see a full-court press on carbon tax (which actually generates revenue) with the social issues put on hold--because as important as social issues are, climate change is an existential threat. Imagine if we were invaded by the Chinese or Russians or aliens for that matter--would we prioritize social issues (perhaps with some half-hearted, billion-dollar gesture toward addressing the invasion), or would we sideline them to deal with the existential threat?
- Syonyk 5y ago
  > ...or would we sideline them to deal with the existential threat? Covid says, "We'd fight over whose fault the invasion was to try and make sure the other guy got the blame." Just like every other dying empire seems to manage on the way down.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Absolutely agreed. Why actually do something when we can deflect to the other side? The partisans will console themselves with the knowledge that they chose the better side while the world burns around them.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      The fossil fuel momentum is gargantuan, propelled by a growing population hungry for creature's comforts. Politicians will do what politicians do, take credit for the direction in which the wind blows. Doubtful they have any meaningful influence. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...