5 ms·

Alas from a policy standpoint, Bush's two terms occurred in likely the most crucial window for averting global warming, and the policy was not up to snuff. Admi

Alas from a policy standpoint, Bush's two terms occurred in likely the most crucial window for averting global warming, and the policy was not up to snuff. Admittedly so were the Clinton years, and he didn't exactly change the course aside from the usual Democrat "words not action" on environmentalism. Plus alt energy is a great tech for the libertarian/offgrid people. It doesn't necessarily mean they're all gung-ho on green tech at a policy level. Schwartzenegger was basically the only GOP politician that was a vocal environmentalist while he was in office, and it wasn't just to appease the California voting base, he probably limited his political career by advocating strongly for global warming policies.

beachy 5y ago
Putin may yet turn out to have the most positive effect of anyone in history on weaning the world from our fossil fuel addiction. I'd love to see him get an award for that (posthumously).
- MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
  Russian oil can just be replaced with American or Saudi oil. They produce a lot but I don’t think this helps reduce demand for oil other than high prices making green alternatives relatively cheaper. Higher prices also means that more people invest in oil and gas exploration and drilling.
  - pvarangot 5y ago
    High prices also lead to more destructive and less understood methods of extraction like hydrofracturing, that uses a shit ton of water and may lead to immediate but long lasting environmental impact.
    - MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
      Incorrect. Low prices created fracking. Fracking was invented to get oil out of formations that otherwise weren’t economic to drill. This is basic knowledge if you know anything about fracking. This takes away any credibility you have regarding environmental impacts of fracking.
      - pvarangot 5y ago
        Thanks for rudely correcting me. It was my understanding that most fracking in the US just doesn't happen or slows down until the barrel reaches a certain price because new wells just don't get drilled.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  I always joked that Republican presidencies would induce recessions that were far more of a positive environmental effect at the macro level than Democratic false advocacy. Nobody in the liberal circles every found that funny. Obama's solar investments seemed to spur action globally, I'm not sure any of the government loans actually produced viable domestic solar, but it probably got the Chinese gung-ho on dominating the sector. So the Chinese government between pushing/subsidizing batteries+EV production and solar production may get the real environmental awards. I hear they are also doing the only real investment in MSR/LFTR/nuclear, so if that pans out then that's another feather in their cap. Reflecting the practical ignorance of environmentalism by both parties, I always called myself a despotic environmentalist for political identification, but the Chinese actually did it, and it may represent our only practical hope: fundamentally enabling the sea change in LCOE cost of solar/wind and the viability of EVs in worldwide consumer transport. If the chinese companies do really get 230-260 wh/kg LFP chemistry scaled, and 150-200 wh/kg sodium ion batteries, then the path to worldwide EV transport for almost everything except air that doesn't need cobalt / nickel becomes fairly clear.
  - ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
    I'm very liberal, and I think your joke is HILARIOUS. My favorite humor is where you don't pick a side, and everyone comes out looking shitty.
  - danans 5y ago
    > I always joked that Republican presidencies would induce recessions that were far more of a positive environmental effect at the macro level than Democratic false advocacy. Nobody in the liberal circles every found that funny. Funny joke. But it rings kind of hollow. Those recessions do little for long term environmental improvement because they channel investment toward the cheapest price (at the time) but highest externality sources of energy, like coal. People getting poorer and running their heating less doesn't help get us off fossil fuels. Arguably the high fuel prices spurred by Arab oil embargo and the now the Ukraine invasion, coupled with higher fuel economy standards, real climate advocacy, and subsidies for renewable generation have had more of a macro effect on reducing emissions than any recessions one might attribute (fairly or not) to Republican presidents.
brimble 5y ago
Carter was probably exactly on track for when we needed to start taking it seriously if we wanted to avoid significant warming entirely, given how long even relatively fast action on these kinds of things usually takes, and considering energy use and sources are a lot harder to change quickly without major economic harm than something like reducing use of chlorofluorocarbons or lead. Instead, we waited until we were well into "well it's already gonna be bad, but we can maybe keep it from being even worse" territory before we even sorta started caring, on a policy and governance level.
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  People give Nixon a lot of shit, and rightly so, but it was his time when the most significant effort (perhaps on the planet) was out forth to address environmental issues. Some of it might have been honest, a lot was likely political; he's quoted as saying “All politics is a fad. Your fad is going right now. Get what you can, and here’s what I can get you” when talking about it [0]. The source linked for that quote is actually a really fascinating and reasonably apolitical read. One might wonder how different things would be if it took until Carter or later. [0]: https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/richard-nixon-and-the-rise-of-american-environmentalism https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/richard-nixon-a...
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Nixon is a really interesting man. Probably one of the smarter and certainly tragic modern presidents. His alcoholism, depression and temperament really bested him.
    - brimble 5y ago
      I'd have to do some thinking/reading to be sure, but I wouldn't rule out that he'd (barely) make my list of top-5 post-war US Presidents. And I'm not even a Republican, at all. That despite being an actual crook with, to put it mildly, questionable mental health. Which really says something about the quality of the rest.
dylan604 5y ago
>he probably limited his political career by advocating strongly for global warming policies. Arnie was governor of a state. Where else could he go after that? He doesn't really come off as Congress/Senate type? He's not eligible for el presidente, so Sacramento was as high as he was going to go.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  I believe there are washloads of money and influence in the party that aren't office-affiliated, but from a public career standpoint, you're right. It's more of an influence within the party standpoint. There was chatter about amending the constitution early in his governorship so that he could be president, but that disappeared, I think for the reasons I speculated...
  - ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
    I think its fair to say his having a child with his maid, and his demonstrated capacity to lie to his wife for years about it while living a double life... kind of damaged his voter appeal much more than his environmentalism.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      So how do you apply that logic to the former guy?
      - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        The former guy has cultivated a cult following that Arnie never had.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Does that sort of thing hurt? The Gavinator slept with his campaign manager’s wife and no one killed him over it.
gwbas1c 5y ago
> Schwartzenegger was basically the only GOP politician that was a vocal environmentalist while he was in office, and it wasn't just to appease the California voting base, he probably limited his political career by advocating strongly for global warming policies. Randy Hunt (R), who was believed to be who would have taken Senator Warren's (D) Senate seat if she was VP, was also quite the environmentalist. When I watched him debate a democratic contender for his seat in the MA house of reps, he was much more knowledgeable about how to combat climate change. The democrat just wanted to throw solar panels everywhere, but Hunt was working with MIT to develop storage technologies for renewable energy.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Theodore Roosevelt (R)? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lands_nationalized_by_Theodore_Roosevelt_through_executive_action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lands_nationalized_b...
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    That’s before the parties flipped.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Life is more complex than that.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Schwartzenegger was basically the only GOP politician that was a vocal environmentalist while he was in office, and it wasn't just to appease the California voting base, he probably limited his political career by advocating strongly for global warming policies. As compared to all of the Republicans who didn't take climate change seriously who have done as well or better in California politics concurrently with or after Schwarzenegger’s term?
- danans 5y ago
  Haven't most Republicans who don't take climate change very seriously done pretty well in deep-red districts in California? People like Rep. McCarthy and former Rep. Nunes have/had a very secure hold on their districts. Schwarzenegger definitely was bucking his party trend on that issue.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Haven't most Republicans who don't take climate change very seriously done pretty well in deep-red districts in California? Deep-red districts are not statewide office. The last two Republicans to be elected to statewide office in California were Schwarzenegger (Governor) and Steve Poizner (Insurance Commissioner), both reelected in 2006. Suggesting that Schwarzenegger’s positions weren’t important to appeal to CA voters and limited his political prospects is...not necessarily absolutely inconsistent with the evidence (given the small data set and potential confounding factors), but definitely also not supported by it.
    - danans 5y ago
      Schwarzenegger definitely got a lot of centrist Democratic leaning voters in CA with his pro-environment stances, so I'd agree that it helped him politically in CA. His initial election was sort of a fluke anyways created by the nutty CA recall process, but he did stay in office for 8 years. He was really a different sort of politician than standard pro-fossil fuel Republicans, and perceived by different standards by voters across the electorate.
tiahura 5y ago
Bush's two terms occurred in likely the most crucial window for averting global warming It seems like we get a dire warning every year that we must wreck the economy NOW or it will be too late. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/ipcc-report-climate-scientists-issue-ultimatum-on-1point5-degrees-goal.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/ipcc-report-climate-scientis...
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Every plan for addressing global climate disruption head-on, if implemented, would fuel an economic boom. Just, not for the fossil-fuel incumbents. So, they win, and we don't.

beachy 5y ago

Putin may yet turn out to have the most positive effect of anyone in history on weaning the world from our fossil fuel addiction. I'd love to see him get an award for that (posthumously).

MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
Russian oil can just be replaced with American or Saudi oil. They produce a lot but I don’t think this helps reduce demand for oil other than high prices making green alternatives relatively cheaper. Higher prices also means that more people invest in oil and gas exploration and drilling.
- pvarangot 5y ago
  High prices also lead to more destructive and less understood methods of extraction like hydrofracturing, that uses a shit ton of water and may lead to immediate but long lasting environmental impact.
  - MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
    Incorrect. Low prices created fracking. Fracking was invented to get oil out of formations that otherwise weren’t economic to drill. This is basic knowledge if you know anything about fracking. This takes away any credibility you have regarding environmental impacts of fracking.
    - pvarangot 5y ago
      Thanks for rudely correcting me. It was my understanding that most fracking in the US just doesn't happen or slows down until the barrel reaches a certain price because new wells just don't get drilled.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I always joked that Republican presidencies would induce recessions that were far more of a positive environmental effect at the macro level than Democratic false advocacy. Nobody in the liberal circles every found that funny. Obama's solar investments seemed to spur action globally, I'm not sure any of the government loans actually produced viable domestic solar, but it probably got the Chinese gung-ho on dominating the sector. So the Chinese government between pushing/subsidizing batteries+EV production and solar production may get the real environmental awards. I hear they are also doing the only real investment in MSR/LFTR/nuclear, so if that pans out then that's another feather in their cap. Reflecting the practical ignorance of environmentalism by both parties, I always called myself a despotic environmentalist for political identification, but the Chinese actually did it, and it may represent our only practical hope: fundamentally enabling the sea change in LCOE cost of solar/wind and the viability of EVs in worldwide consumer transport. If the chinese companies do really get 230-260 wh/kg LFP chemistry scaled, and 150-200 wh/kg sodium ion batteries, then the path to worldwide EV transport for almost everything except air that doesn't need cobalt / nickel becomes fairly clear.
- ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
  I'm very liberal, and I think your joke is HILARIOUS. My favorite humor is where you don't pick a side, and everyone comes out looking shitty.
- danans 5y ago
  > I always joked that Republican presidencies would induce recessions that were far more of a positive environmental effect at the macro level than Democratic false advocacy. Nobody in the liberal circles every found that funny. Funny joke. But it rings kind of hollow. Those recessions do little for long term environmental improvement because they channel investment toward the cheapest price (at the time) but highest externality sources of energy, like coal. People getting poorer and running their heating less doesn't help get us off fossil fuels. Arguably the high fuel prices spurred by Arab oil embargo and the now the Ukraine invasion, coupled with higher fuel economy standards, real climate advocacy, and subsidies for renewable generation have had more of a macro effect on reducing emissions than any recessions one might attribute (fairly or not) to Republican presidents.

brimble 5y ago

Carter was probably exactly on track for when we needed to start taking it seriously if we wanted to avoid significant warming entirely, given how long even relatively fast action on these kinds of things usually takes, and considering energy use and sources are a lot harder to change quickly without major economic harm than something like reducing use of chlorofluorocarbons or lead. Instead, we waited until we were well into "well it's already gonna be bad, but we can maybe keep it from being even worse" territory before we even sorta started caring, on a policy and governance level.

jimmygrapes 5y ago
People give Nixon a lot of shit, and rightly so, but it was his time when the most significant effort (perhaps on the planet) was out forth to address environmental issues. Some of it might have been honest, a lot was likely political; he's quoted as saying “All politics is a fad. Your fad is going right now. Get what you can, and here’s what I can get you” when talking about it [0]. The source linked for that quote is actually a really fascinating and reasonably apolitical read. One might wonder how different things would be if it took until Carter or later. [0]: https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/richard-nixon-and-the-rise-of-american-environmentalism https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/richard-nixon-a...
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Nixon is a really interesting man. Probably one of the smarter and certainly tragic modern presidents. His alcoholism, depression and temperament really bested him.
  - brimble 5y ago
    I'd have to do some thinking/reading to be sure, but I wouldn't rule out that he'd (barely) make my list of top-5 post-war US Presidents. And I'm not even a Republican, at all. That despite being an actual crook with, to put it mildly, questionable mental health. Which really says something about the quality of the rest.

dylan604 5y ago

>he probably limited his political career by advocating strongly for global warming policies. Arnie was governor of a state. Where else could he go after that? He doesn't really come off as Congress/Senate type? He's not eligible for el presidente, so Sacramento was as high as he was going to go.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I believe there are washloads of money and influence in the party that aren't office-affiliated, but from a public career standpoint, you're right. It's more of an influence within the party standpoint. There was chatter about amending the constitution early in his governorship so that he could be president, but that disappeared, I think for the reasons I speculated...
- ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
  I think its fair to say his having a child with his maid, and his demonstrated capacity to lie to his wife for years about it while living a double life... kind of damaged his voter appeal much more than his environmentalism.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    So how do you apply that logic to the former guy?
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
      The former guy has cultivated a cult following that Arnie never had.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Does that sort of thing hurt? The Gavinator slept with his campaign manager’s wife and no one killed him over it.

gwbas1c 5y ago

> Schwartzenegger was basically the only GOP politician that was a vocal environmentalist while he was in office, and it wasn't just to appease the California voting base, he probably limited his political career by advocating strongly for global warming policies. Randy Hunt (R), who was believed to be who would have taken Senator Warren's (D) Senate seat if she was VP, was also quite the environmentalist. When I watched him debate a democratic contender for his seat in the MA house of reps, he was much more knowledgeable about how to combat climate change. The democrat just wanted to throw solar panels everywhere, but Hunt was working with MIT to develop storage technologies for renewable energy.

ethbr0 5y ago
Theodore Roosevelt (R)? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lands_nationalized_by_Theodore_Roosevelt_through_executive_action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lands_nationalized_b...
- kmonsen 5y ago
  That’s before the parties flipped.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Life is more complex than that.

dragonwriter 5y ago

danans 5y ago
Haven't most Republicans who don't take climate change very seriously done pretty well in deep-red districts in California? People like Rep. McCarthy and former Rep. Nunes have/had a very secure hold on their districts. Schwarzenegger definitely was bucking his party trend on that issue.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Haven't most Republicans who don't take climate change very seriously done pretty well in deep-red districts in California? Deep-red districts are not statewide office. The last two Republicans to be elected to statewide office in California were Schwarzenegger (Governor) and Steve Poizner (Insurance Commissioner), both reelected in 2006. Suggesting that Schwarzenegger’s positions weren’t important to appeal to CA voters and limited his political prospects is...not necessarily absolutely inconsistent with the evidence (given the small data set and potential confounding factors), but definitely also not supported by it.
  - danans 5y ago
    Schwarzenegger definitely got a lot of centrist Democratic leaning voters in CA with his pro-environment stances, so I'd agree that it helped him politically in CA. His initial election was sort of a fluke anyways created by the nutty CA recall process, but he did stay in office for 8 years. He was really a different sort of politician than standard pro-fossil fuel Republicans, and perceived by different standards by voters across the electorate.

tiahura 5y ago

Bush's two terms occurred in likely the most crucial window for averting global warming It seems like we get a dire warning every year that we must wreck the economy NOW or it will be too late. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/ipcc-report-climate-scientists-issue-ultimatum-on-1point5-degrees-goal.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/ipcc-report-climate-scientis...

ncmncm 5y ago
Every plan for addressing global climate disruption head-on, if implemented, would fuel an economic boom. Just, not for the fossil-fuel incumbents. So, they win, and we don't.