4 ms·

You do the people causing this problem a great service with false equivocations like this. It is clear one group would prefer us to ignore the problem and do no

You do the people causing this problem a great service with false equivocations like this. It is clear one group would prefer us to ignore the problem and do nothing at all - in fact encourage the problematic behavior - and the other would very much like to take action on the issue if they had the political power.

lapcat 7mo ago
> the other would very much like to take action on the issue if they had the political power. They had political power! During the Biden administration, during the Obama administration, during the Clinton administration. Al Gore is a famous environmentalist... for making a movie after he was out of power. What the hell did he do for the environment when he was literally in the Oval Office, at the side of the President?
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  > What the hell did he do for the environment when he was literally in the Oval Office, at the side of the President? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_activism_of_Al_Gore#Vice_presidency:_1993%E2%80%932001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_activism_of_Al_G... Guy tried.
  - lapcat 7mo ago
    > Guy tried. Give him a sticker.
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      That's more perks than the job Constitutionally awards. It was created as a powerless placeholder role.
      - lapcat 7mo ago
        You're missing the point, which is that by all accounts, Al Gore was a close advisor to Bill Clinton.
        ceejayoz 7mo ago
        And by all accounts, he pushed for action on climate change. As it turns out, close advisors still don't get to set policy.
        lapcat 7mo ago
        Another interpretation is that Gore engaged primarily in symbolism. The Kyoto Protocol itself was primarily symbolic, with little or no enforcement mechanism.
- mrguyorama 7mo ago
  >During the Biden administration, during the Obama administration, during the Clinton administration The president doesn't actually control much in the USA, despite the nonsensical shit republican congresses let them get away with. Obama, Biden, and Clinton could not do anything that wasn't approved by congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat... Democrats have not really held enough power to do anything at all in like 40 years. A 1 or 2 vote "majority" in a chamber is not really meant to allow you to do anything. Hell, that very first graph makes it pretty clear why shit is so bad in the US, we used to actually fire congress and replace them with different people.
  - lapcat 7mo ago
    > A 1 or 2 vote "majority" in a chamber is not really meant to allow you to do anything. 1) Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority during Obama's first term. 2) The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It can be abolished at any time by a simple majority vote. The Democrats don't do anything because they don't want to do anything. There's always a convenient excuse. You can blame Manchin or Sinema or whomever, but they're Democrats too.
  - chucksta 7mo ago
    There was democratic control of the presidency and congress during Biden's term
    - knowaveragejoe 7mo ago
      There really wasn't. The person you replied to covered as much. They had the opportunity for a few big bills, which they did - much of it ultimately stemming from concerns around climate change.
  - specialist 7mo ago
    Correct. We're in a vetocracy. h/t Francis Fukuyama Both our Senate and SCOTUS are anti-democratic. I daresay they've proven reactionary, with a few notable exceptions.
- volkl48 7mo ago
  The Biden admin did try to make large-scale investments in renewables and policy changes to encourage the energy transition in the US. The situation at the end of the admin was far better than when it started. Why are you using a tone that implies that's not the case?
- specialist 7mo ago
  Are you familiar with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics? https://gwern.net/doc/philosophy/ethics/2015-06-24-jai-thecopenhageninterpretationofethics.html https://gwern.net/doc/philosophy/ethics/2015-06-24-jai-theco... And Murc's Law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murc%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murc%27s_law
- knowaveragejoe 7mo ago
  I'm sorry but if you are trying to both-sides this issue then you are either woefully uninformed or just being contrarian for the sake of it.

lapcat 7mo ago

> the other would very much like to take action on the issue if they had the political power. They had political power! During the Biden administration, during the Obama administration, during the Clinton administration. Al Gore is a famous environmentalist... for making a movie after he was out of power. What the hell did he do for the environment when he was literally in the Oval Office, at the side of the President?

ceejayoz 7mo ago
> What the hell did he do for the environment when he was literally in the Oval Office, at the side of the President? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_activism_of_Al_Gore#Vice_presidency:_1993%E2%80%932001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_activism_of_Al_G... Guy tried.
- lapcat 7mo ago
  > Guy tried. Give him a sticker.
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    That's more perks than the job Constitutionally awards. It was created as a powerless placeholder role.
    - lapcat 7mo ago
      You're missing the point, which is that by all accounts, Al Gore was a close advisor to Bill Clinton.
      - ceejayoz 7mo ago
        And by all accounts, he pushed for action on climate change. As it turns out, close advisors still don't get to set policy.
        lapcat 7mo ago
        Another interpretation is that Gore engaged primarily in symbolism. The Kyoto Protocol itself was primarily symbolic, with little or no enforcement mechanism.
mrguyorama 7mo ago
>During the Biden administration, during the Obama administration, during the Clinton administration The president doesn't actually control much in the USA, despite the nonsensical shit republican congresses let them get away with. Obama, Biden, and Clinton could not do anything that wasn't approved by congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat... Democrats have not really held enough power to do anything at all in like 40 years. A 1 or 2 vote "majority" in a chamber is not really meant to allow you to do anything. Hell, that very first graph makes it pretty clear why shit is so bad in the US, we used to actually fire congress and replace them with different people.
- lapcat 7mo ago
  > A 1 or 2 vote "majority" in a chamber is not really meant to allow you to do anything. 1) Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority during Obama's first term. 2) The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It can be abolished at any time by a simple majority vote. The Democrats don't do anything because they don't want to do anything. There's always a convenient excuse. You can blame Manchin or Sinema or whomever, but they're Democrats too.
- chucksta 7mo ago
  There was democratic control of the presidency and congress during Biden's term
  - knowaveragejoe 7mo ago
    There really wasn't. The person you replied to covered as much. They had the opportunity for a few big bills, which they did - much of it ultimately stemming from concerns around climate change.
- specialist 7mo ago
  Correct. We're in a vetocracy. h/t Francis Fukuyama Both our Senate and SCOTUS are anti-democratic. I daresay they've proven reactionary, with a few notable exceptions.
volkl48 7mo ago
The Biden admin did try to make large-scale investments in renewables and policy changes to encourage the energy transition in the US. The situation at the end of the admin was far better than when it started. Why are you using a tone that implies that's not the case?
specialist 7mo ago
Are you familiar with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics? https://gwern.net/doc/philosophy/ethics/2015-06-24-jai-thecopenhageninterpretationofethics.html https://gwern.net/doc/philosophy/ethics/2015-06-24-jai-theco... And Murc's Law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murc%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murc%27s_law
knowaveragejoe 7mo ago
I'm sorry but if you are trying to both-sides this issue then you are either woefully uninformed or just being contrarian for the sake of it.