6 ms·
one thing i definitely worry is about using public lands for oil, mineral extraction purposes. while America has a bounty of public land acreage wise, 4 years
by borg16 2y ago
one thing i definitely worry is about using public lands for oil, mineral extraction purposes.
while America has a bounty of public land acreage wise, 4 years and a complete control of the government is a lot of time to do some lasting damage to the ecosystem by opening up these areas for privatization.
- xnx 2y agoAgree. There are a lot of mistakes that can be undone, but ecological damage can take decades to restore its former beauty, and extinct species don't come back (some recent headlines notwithstanding).
- _heimdall 2y agoThe recent media attention on possible lithium fields in and around Arkansas was an interesting one to me. It seems like one that I could see the DNC latching onto for battery capacity despite the fact that it would still likely meaning he same kind of impact in federal land as mining oil, coal, etc.
- fraserharris 2y agoLithium deposits are common -- Nevada has significant ones too. The question is if the lithium is concentrated enough to make extracting it financially viable.
- _heimdall 2y agoThat wasn't really my point though. The discovered deposits, well expected deposits since its based on modelling data, could easily lead to a massive mining operation to extract it. That will do damage very similar to the exact kind of fossil fuel extraction that is a main argument against fossil fuels and for alternative energy sources.
- Sabinus 2y ago[flagged]
- _heimdall 2y agoNo one likes working in a coal mine. I'm not sure what you think a comment like this is helping, but it isn't.
- MagicMoonlight 2y agoSure it will lead to a big hole, but is that really damage? For me, it’s the burning of the planet which is damage. You can cover a hole back up, you can’t bring back the entire planet.
- lordswork 2y agoEmissions are the bigger issue. Unfortunately, some sort of mining is still required for emission and emission-free sources of energy.
- calvinmorrison 2y ago[flagged]
- danudey 2y ago4 years and a complete control of the supreme court guarantees lasting damage to the ecosystem (and all other aspects of society) since all the conservative/right-wing issues just need to be appealed up to SCOTUS and they'll get their way - and set legal precedent on the way. There's two justices ready to retire, and if Trump replaces them (and he will) that'll be five supreme court justices appointed by Trump and chosen by his cronies. The entire legal system will be corrupted for decades.
- qingcharles 2y agoRight. This is the biggest damage Trump can do because it lasts so long after his presidency.
- TomK32 2y agoWell, the size of the Supreme Court is not fixed at nine. A future Democratic president might just work to increase it to give it more balance.
- jayGlow 2y agowouldn't that just start an arms race of each side trying to stack the court whenever they're in power?
- nateglims 2y agoYeah, same with ending filibuster and other speculated tactics. I don't think you can close the door behind you without a constitutional amendment, which won't happen.
- nocoolnametom 2y agoYes, but each time diluting the power of the justices individually. Right now if you have one wacko justice who decides on the basis of political ideology instead of some of the established legal theories they have 11% of a say in things. Add another few justices who are relatively normal and the ability of the wacko to swing things into dangerous territory goes down. Even if the tit-for-tat tries to cram more wackos in you have to try to convince the Senate to let more and more obviously terribly choices through.
- crdrost 2y agoOne irony atop another: securing this land (against the onslaught of big business) was a celebration for Conservatives, not Liberals. That and, I miss the Republican party that didn't actively try to piss off the ACLU every hour on the hour. It's just nonstop… • book bans • rhetoric about sending the military after political opponents • politicians ruled as being above the law • short circuiting due process with immigrants, both illegal and not • breaking up families of would-be asylum seekers for no damn reason • the Trump Muslim ban • the constant erection of/for Ten Commandments statues It used to be a thing in some conservative circles, “No, that teacher is Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912, not Council of 1879, I don't want his people educating my child about what he thinks the Ten Commandments really mean!!” I used to fancy myself a conservative back then. The ACLU and libertarians were the people that the Left had kind of given up on, and we were happy to say “yes, come be conservative with us, and we will try not to piss you off.” Now everyone has given up on them, they had to hold their noses and vote Kamala and pray for a few more years of “not again.” I'm not even a libertarian, just don't understand why we are wasting resources pissing them off
- anon291 2y ago[flagged]
- crdrost 2y agoJust to be clear, are you saying that the ACLU has not been pissed off at the GOP for book bans? Or are you just saying they should be mad at Amazon more? (Because like, libertarians and the ACLU are not going to get mad at Amazon for deciding what rules they want to enforce in their own marketplace. Which makes me read your comment as just another instance of shouting “fuck the libertarians!” that I above called a phenomenal waste of conservative resources. Like, why? There shouldn't be this strange alliance between the “only government that can be trusted is a dead government” people and the fucking political Left, like, WTF if that’s what’s going on)
- anon291 2y ago
- honkycat 2y ago[flagged]
- dbish 2y agoKids are great and the world is less doomed than some will have you believe. We can improve, create, and make things better and that doesn’t happen if humanity dies out.
- behringer 2y agoA leftist idealism quite out of touch with our current reality.
- dbish 2y agoSorry what? What’s leftist about it?
- behringer 2y ago> We can improve, create, and make things better Everything the left does in the US is in pursuit of those 3 things. The right has and will now continue to do everything in their power to destroy all 3 those things in the name of money. And not money for you or me. Of course, the republican populous doesn't believe that, but it doesn't make it any less true. The reality is much, much worse than you, or even most people realize.
- m3t4man 2y agoMaybe morality isn't discussed enough. People can proclaim that morality is subjective and hence less worthy of consideration or overall less important as a result of not being a constant in all people; However all of us have things we consider to be good and bad. If people are interested in propagation of those 3 decided upon virtues, then imho it'd be a good idea to try and explain to others why these are important to aspire for. At the moment, people share their values to each other with some form of acrimony, and expects the other to submit/change, or just hurt. It perpetuates this vicious cycle of no one being able to productively talk to each other if they disagree. I think there's mismatch on a fundamental level. A lot of spite and lack of desire to understand (some more than others).
- autoexec 2y agoThe environment is certainly screwed. I also expect that regulations against air and water pollution will be on the chopping block so not only will the ecosystem suffer, but the population will too.
- andrei_says_ 2y agoI prefer the word “biosphere”. Our biosphere is going to be poisoned, faster, and we in it.
- culi 2y agoIt's hard to see Trump do any worse than Biden on this front, but I'm sure he'll try. Biden admin approved over 50% more oil/drilling permits than Trump. More than any president in history
- kagakuninja 2y agoAnd yet people continue to blame Biden for high energy prices. Boggles the mind.
- aksss 2y agoIn short, granting permits from lease sales performed in the last administration is a trailing indicator of.. the last administration's activity. The more important measure for the Biden administration's energy development policy was how many new lease sales were performed, and how many leases were effectively cancelled or otherwise put in limbo. Some resources to help "unboggle" the mind: https://www.energyindepth.org/why-bidens-oil-drilling-permits-surge-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://www.energyindepth.org/why-bidens-oil-drilling-permit... "Mixed messages from the administration – like canceling lease sales one minute and touting approved permits to drill the next – create uncertainty within the energy industry, hindering long-term investments and exacerbating challenges for the United States" https://archive.is/9x1an https://archive.is/9x1an "The Biden administration has leased fewer acres for oil-and-gas drilling offshore and on federal land than any other administration in its early stages dating back to the end of World War II, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis." "The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 requires onshore oil and gas leasing “at least quarterly.” While the Biden administration has been in office for six quarters, it has conducted auctions in just one of them. That happened in late June, after the administration came under increasing pressure to tame soaring gasoline prices at the pump in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine." "Mr. Biden pledged to stop drilling on federal lands as a candidate, saying the nation needs to transition to clean energy. He softened his stance as oil prices soared following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—calling for boosting oil supplies to ease runaway inflation—but he has nonetheless spurned a leasing program that for decades has been a go-to asset for presidents looking to raise U.S. energy production."
- 2y ago
- partiallypro 2y agoRealistically the GOP will have the complete control for only 2 years. Dems will sweep the midterms.
- xp84 2y agoIt depends -- for all his bad ideas (and there are many) some of the things he promises could be good and impactful, and he may have enough leverage and power to do this time, especially when contrasting SCOTUS 2017 with SCOTUS 2025. I think 2026 will be a referendum on: - Has Trump F'd things up severely? and - Have Democrats stopped running on DEI as the main reason to vote for them and instead clearly laid out and justified their plans? And have they gained any support outside the elites?
- i_am_a_peasant 2y agoI highly doubt that it's just 4 years of republicans. I think they'll win the 2 terms after trump as well, so we're potentially looking at 12 years of republicans in the white house.