5 ms·

The biggest impact a former (or current) president can have is to use their position to influence the current debate. It's great that GW Bush has an efficient

by danans 5y ago

The biggest impact a former (or current) president can have is to use their position to influence the current debate. It's great that GW Bush has an efficient electric home, but he's hardly used his voice and platform to speak out in support of renewable and zero carbon energy sources and fighting climate change. If he had done so, perhaps a significant percentage of the population wouldn't perceive reducing use fossil fuels as a threatening identity politics issue, and rather as something that is better in the long run for their pocketbooks and the environment. This may have something to do with his being a former oil executive, governor, and prominent resident of Texas, a major fossil fuel producing state, and therefore not having an interest in promoting anything that would challenge the bread and butter industry of his state and many other fossil fuel based economies around the world. It's never too late for him to start speaking up against fossil fuels, though! It would be a great service to his country and the world if he did.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. The majority of all voters want more action on climate change. It is presented as a partisan issue to give politicians an excuse for their inaction on behalf of their owners, while laying the blame on the common people -- privatize profit and socialize responsibility, as usual. Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures. Who knows, he may even have got a few people across the aisle to reconsider their pro intervention stance and prevented much horror and tragedy and further destruction of the west's moral standing caused by subsequent administrations. Although I guess he's just as deep in it with the war industry too.
- danans 5y ago
  > Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. If this were the case, most Republican politicians would be running on a carbon emissions reduction platform, but that's manifestly not the case. The vast majority are either silent on the issue or openly mock the idea of its existence. The only other explanation is that there is a tacit understanding between them and their voters that they privately take climate change seriously but just don't want to discuss it openly, which is an extremely far fetched explanation. It's not impossible for conservatives to take climate change seriously and confront it openly - look at the current UK government for example. Likewise, it's not a given that a far-left leader takes climate change seriously - look at Venezuela. It matters where the bread is buttered. > Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures Agreed, but as the Ukraine war has again shown us, fossil fuels are the glue that binds climate change and wars of aggression, so I'm not so sure that we can separate the two so easily.
  - ars 5y ago
    Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that goal. This has second order effects: Republicans will say if your new energy source is cheaper, people will automatically use it, no need for government to do anything. While Democrats want the government to mandate it, because that's the only way it will work if it's more expensive. You might also consider if I've reversed 1st order and 2nd order here, that's up to you to decide.
    - danans 5y ago
      > Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that goal. Fossil fuels are only less expensive when you ignore the real health and climate change costs, which is precisely what politicians aligned with fossil fuel interests do on both sides of the political aisle.
      - lazide 5y ago
        Near as I can tell, at least right now the real health and climate costs are hard to quantity and very diffuse across a huge number of people. Also prone to exaggeration or undercounting. Price at the pump/wellhead is easy, and impossible to ignore.
    - stonogo 5y ago
      This comparison completely ignores a glaring counterpoint: corn. It's not the Democrats shoving through corn subsidies, then cramming ethanol requirements into the system. It's not Republicans either. It's universally bipartisan, despite ethanol being a terrible fuel source.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        One small thing corn-sourced ethanol has going for it is that it’s using current carbon rather than ancient carbon.
- Cd00d 5y ago
  If climate change were a bipartisan issue, I'd expect more diversity in the sorts of bumper stickers I see on trucks coal rolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    It is, regardless of what you expect about bumper stickers.
assttoasstmgr 5y ago
Do you suggest he should follow the example of more recent politicians and use his bully pulpit to tell the general population to go buy a $50k electric car, when many working families live paycheck to paycheck, and are now having to decide between whether to put food on the table or fuel in their tank? It never appeared to be the man's style; he pretty much went underground after leaving office from what I remember. Environmentalism is expensive. It requires considerable capital investment and most individuals just don't have the means. Even with tax breaks and incentives, these things are still out of reach for much of the working class. Politicians are patronizing people who can't afford a new ICE vehicle, let alone an EV.
- danans 5y ago
  > Do you suggest he should follow the example of more recent politicians and use his bully pulpit to tell the general population to go buy a $50k electric car He should have punched up and told the auto industry to produce more efficient ICE cars and EVs to help regular Americans save money on gas. Instead, he weakened the CAFE standard [1]. And he should have advocated for more tax credits for lower income people to buy more efficient vehicles (paid for by higher taxes on high income people). 1. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060428-9.html https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/20...
  - coredog64 5y ago
    CAFE is such a shitty law that the best thing you could do would be taking it behind the barn and shooting it. Rather than set a floor, it sets a ceiling. The artificial divide on fleets by where they are produced privileges UAW members over fuel economy and consumers. The class distinction ended moderately economical wagons for monster SUVs. And on and on and on. Kill it, sign a safety standards harmonization agreement with the EU and Japan, and ruthlessly prioritize making it possible for American consumers to buy the same models available in other markets where fuel economy is serious business.
    - danans 5y ago
formerkrogemp 5y ago
It's way too late for that. When Al Gore, as involved as he was with An Inconvenient Truth, was the alternative to Bush and given how little Bush did for preparing the country for climate change, the damage is done. Bush will be condemned in history as having failed to address climate change in any meaningful capacity.

by danans 5y ago

throwawaylinux 5y ago

Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. The majority of all voters want more action on climate change. It is presented as a partisan issue to give politicians an excuse for their inaction on behalf of their owners, while laying the blame on the common people -- privatize profit and socialize responsibility, as usual. Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures. Who knows, he may even have got a few people across the aisle to reconsider their pro intervention stance and prevented much horror and tragedy and further destruction of the west's moral standing caused by subsequent administrations. Although I guess he's just as deep in it with the war industry too.

danans 5y ago
> Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. If this were the case, most Republican politicians would be running on a carbon emissions reduction platform, but that's manifestly not the case. The vast majority are either silent on the issue or openly mock the idea of its existence. The only other explanation is that there is a tacit understanding between them and their voters that they privately take climate change seriously but just don't want to discuss it openly, which is an extremely far fetched explanation. It's not impossible for conservatives to take climate change seriously and confront it openly - look at the current UK government for example. Likewise, it's not a given that a far-left leader takes climate change seriously - look at Venezuela. It matters where the bread is buttered. > Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures Agreed, but as the Ukraine war has again shown us, fossil fuels are the glue that binds climate change and wars of aggression, so I'm not so sure that we can separate the two so easily.
- ars 5y ago
  Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that goal. This has second order effects: Republicans will say if your new energy source is cheaper, people will automatically use it, no need for government to do anything. While Democrats want the government to mandate it, because that's the only way it will work if it's more expensive. You might also consider if I've reversed 1st order and 2nd order here, that's up to you to decide.
  - danans 5y ago
    > Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that goal. Fossil fuels are only less expensive when you ignore the real health and climate change costs, which is precisely what politicians aligned with fossil fuel interests do on both sides of the political aisle.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Near as I can tell, at least right now the real health and climate costs are hard to quantity and very diffuse across a huge number of people. Also prone to exaggeration or undercounting. Price at the pump/wellhead is easy, and impossible to ignore.
  - stonogo 5y ago
    This comparison completely ignores a glaring counterpoint: corn. It's not the Democrats shoving through corn subsidies, then cramming ethanol requirements into the system. It's not Republicans either. It's universally bipartisan, despite ethanol being a terrible fuel source.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      One small thing corn-sourced ethanol has going for it is that it’s using current carbon rather than ancient carbon.
Cd00d 5y ago
If climate change were a bipartisan issue, I'd expect more diversity in the sorts of bumper stickers I see on trucks coal rolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  It is, regardless of what you expect about bumper stickers.

assttoasstmgr 5y ago

Do you suggest he should follow the example of more recent politicians and use his bully pulpit to tell the general population to go buy a $50k electric car, when many working families live paycheck to paycheck, and are now having to decide between whether to put food on the table or fuel in their tank? It never appeared to be the man's style; he pretty much went underground after leaving office from what I remember. Environmentalism is expensive. It requires considerable capital investment and most individuals just don't have the means. Even with tax breaks and incentives, these things are still out of reach for much of the working class. Politicians are patronizing people who can't afford a new ICE vehicle, let alone an EV.

danans 5y ago
> Do you suggest he should follow the example of more recent politicians and use his bully pulpit to tell the general population to go buy a $50k electric car He should have punched up and told the auto industry to produce more efficient ICE cars and EVs to help regular Americans save money on gas. Instead, he weakened the CAFE standard [1]. And he should have advocated for more tax credits for lower income people to buy more efficient vehicles (paid for by higher taxes on high income people). 1. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060428-9.html https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/20...
- coredog64 5y ago
  CAFE is such a shitty law that the best thing you could do would be taking it behind the barn and shooting it. Rather than set a floor, it sets a ceiling. The artificial divide on fleets by where they are produced privileges UAW members over fuel economy and consumers. The class distinction ended moderately economical wagons for monster SUVs. And on and on and on. Kill it, sign a safety standards harmonization agreement with the EU and Japan, and ruthlessly prioritize making it possible for American consumers to buy the same models available in other markets where fuel economy is serious business.
  - danans 5y ago

formerkrogemp 5y ago

It's way too late for that. When Al Gore, as involved as he was with An Inconvenient Truth, was the alternative to Bush and given how little Bush did for preparing the country for climate change, the damage is done. Bush will be condemned in history as having failed to address climate change in any meaningful capacity.