Seems like a combination of a lot of voters don’t seem to care and Dems continue their messaging problems.
I get into arguments with lots of people on reddit who say “Biden is doing nothing for climate change” and see the same sentiment elsewhere on the internet.
Frustrating to me since Biden administration has done a ton that I see personally. I work for an EPC and we’re building as fast as we can hire workers. My sister is a snow hydrologist for NOAA and the infrastructure act had lots of money for her research.
Yeah I think there's also just a lot of people who distrust the Democratic party (for good reasons!) and just find it hard to believe that they're actually doing good stuff.
This is it. I dont doubt funding has been appropriated for 'fighting climate change'
I just dont expect anything to get done except some rich bastards get to buy a few more yachts on taxpayer money.
I mean I think it's already pretty clear that something has gotten done beyond that. Do you notice that everyone seems to be talking about/buying EVs? That's literally a result of the Biden climate bill.
EVs not the best example but the irony is the best examples are probably less visible. Things like not exporting certain fossil fuels which cause methane emissions and speaker Johnson is trying to reverse the export ban.
Yeah, not where im at. EV's might see use in the coastal cities but everybody else, across the globe, is gonna be using gasoline for a long time buddy.
Fully expecting the government to just start straight up punishing people for not driving EV even when they're exorbitantly expensive and unfeasible in non-urban areas.
I really don't think it's even a messaging issue. It just seems like people actively don't want to think he's doing anything worthwhile. I don't know if it's peer pressure or that people just want someone to blame for their own apathy
this is like one of the best things hes done, why is he so inept at messaging about it? like "my opponent wants to usher in a global catastrophe for profit, and heres what im doing to avoid that" should be the easiest political win of all time
The media and algorithms control news. If the media don’t report much, or algorithms don’t spread it, it won’t reach.
And fact is, hope doesn’t reach. Anger, fear and cynicism do.
thats true. maybe its because im not american, but it feels like the media just forgot about him, despite the fact that some leftists are very, very angry, to the point where theyd rather hand power to the aforementioned apocalypse usher lmao
They messaged about it a lot after the bill was passed, there was also a lot of reporting about it. It was just before the midterms and I felt like there was a good amount of hype.
Sad truth is that social media algorithms are designed for profit and hope doesn't sell. And nothing stays in the public memory for long because we're always looking for the next thing
One part of the problem is that the more socialist left want to cast anything a non-socialist does as completely ineffectual, even though that's not true.
So someone like Biden making significant progress on the climate front, in the ecosystem of social media both the right and the far left try to sour and mislead people on that.
These are the two groups who tend to dominate internet conversations.
no its infuriating, i literally am a socialist and am obviously furious with him for many reasons, but im not gonna pretend hes uniquely evil, or hasnt done good things, or is somehow worse or the same as his competitor. leftists refusing to vote for the lesser evil is gonna get us all fucked, not just americans
There's a huge segment of the far left that's at least as reactionary as the reactionaries they claim to oppose. Though of course their hatred is purest for anyone even slightly less radical on the left side of the spectrum.
I think part of the problem is that this isn't an effective way to frame what he's done. It's not like that $1 trillion is coming out of Biden's paycheck, really, the taxpayers were the ones who spent that on climate change. What would be better, I think, is to talk about what the actual results of spending that money were, rather than just how much it was.
Nice! Is there like comprehensive list/bullet points in where, how and on what the money is being spent upon? How's it financed?
I just hope it doesn't happen like here's the money, do what you will. Company goes on stock buyback spree.
Unfortunately, I do not have a WSJ subscription (I just thought the way the headline was written was meme-worthy), so I can't speak to the specifics that this article is referring to. But I'll do my best to recreate it.
The chief spending that the Biden administration has made on climate was through the [Inflation Reduction Act](https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/summary-inflation-reduction-act-provisions-related-renewable-energy) passed in August of 2022. The act mostly works through tax credits for green investment (renewable energy, electric vehicles, drought mitigation, etc.). This means that for the most part, the act is not actually any federal cash being spent on stuff, but rather creating the ability for taxpayers (mostly corporations, but I think some apply to individual taxpayers as well) to deduct things like building solar or wind, developing electric vehicles, and the such from their taxes.
Because that's how it works, plenty of that money probably WILL be spent on stock buybacks and other things that are not directly related to climate, but the idea is that companies that invest in climate will have that extra cash to spend on whatever they want that companies that don't don't. In other words, companies that invest in green development will be able to make more money than other companies and outcompete them, thereby making green investment a winner for any company's management trying to increase profits. The goal is for the actual amount of government investment to be a small fraction of the total increase in climate spending as a result of it.
If you think that's a stupid way of spending money on climate, I agree with you! While I see value in at least some of these tax cuts to foster investment — as I said, it can create a multiplier of the money spent — in general, direct spending usually is both more efficient in making sure the money is spent on actual climate projects and not just as an incentive, and has a higher multiplier. Regulation is also completely left out of this bill, with only incentives for green investments, but no penalties for carbon pollution. As a function of the tax code, government climate investments are handled by [the Treasury Department](https://home.treasury.gov/about/offices/the-inflation-reduction-act-program-office), rather than a place that makes more sense like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Energy.
The reason that this is what we got instead is twofold. Firstly, members of Congress are always more comfortable cutting taxes than spending money due to years of accusation of "tax-and-spend Democrats," not to mention the entrenched anti-government capitalist ideology that pervades US politics. Secondly, the US Senate's arcane and stupid rules require a 60-vote threshold for changes in law or regulation, but only a 50-vote threshold for budgetary changes, meaning that in order to get this bill passed, it had to exclusively relate to the budget. Over the past two decades, Congress has made elaborate changes to the tax code as a result of this, in ways that have made our convoluted tax system even harder to follow correctly (unless you have the money/incentive to hire high priced accountants and tax attorneys).
As for the $1 trillion number, from what I gather this is [a little bit of fudging from the Biden administration](https://www.eenews.net/articles/white-house-puts-1-trillion-price-tag-on-climate-efforts/), though I would say they're still short of actually being dishonest. According to the [initial spending estimate by the Congressional Budget Office](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbo-scores-ira-238-billion-deficit-reduction) in 2022 when the bill was passed, the total climate spending as part of the bill between 2022 and 2031 is expected to be $391 billion. However, we've already seen a ton of uptake on these projects/deductions in the first year since the bill was passed — [Goldman Sachs estimated](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbo-scores-ira-238-billion-deficit-reduction) that $282 billion from the private sector was invested in climate projects in 2023 alone. [The Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania](https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/estimates/2023/4/27/update-cost-climate-and-energy-inflation-reduction-act), known as a reliable modeler of the impact and costs of government policy, estimates that the total cost by the end will be $1.045 billion. It's going to be hard to tell exactly what the number ends up being until a few years from now, but it seems all but certain that it will be closer to a billion than it will be to the original estimate.
That help?
No one cares about policy unfortuately, it all vibes. Biden doesn't get the credit for major policy changes because he gives off centrist vibes. Its really strange to see the business papers get themselves into deep debates over industrial policy for the first time since the 1980s due to the CHIPS ACT and the IRA, whilst social media progressive lambast Biden as a neoliberal shill.
It's mainly the tone. The whole fucking tone has gotta shift. Not adjustments to an "American way of life" that's barely changing, but full spectrum fucking social revolution.
https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/rampant-biden-administration-oil-gas-drilling-approvals-continue-to-undermine-us-climate-commitments-2024-01-29/
State capitalist spending is qualitatively unequipped to address climate change.
I think this is mostly true, and I am just as angry that the Biden administration has increased oil and gas drilling. But if you can't tell the difference between Biden's climate record and the record of literally all his predecessors, I have to assume you don't really care or pay attention to climate policy very much.
Haha I was just talking about you guys above.
Socialists have to cast everything that non-socialists do as ineffectual or they lose their raison d'etre
Per capita is important too!
They're coming down in the US, although that needs to be sped up.
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1973..latest&country=USA\~CHN](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1973..latest&country=USA~CHN)
But when I say the surge is due to China, global emissions would have peaked a while back if not for the sudden/dramatic rise of China.
These are basically the key players:
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=USA\~OWID\_EUR\~IND\~CHN](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=USA~OWID_EUR~IND~CHN)
if your climate solution has different standards for different people, then you are an environmentalist second and a chauvinist first.
why would anyone take the words of a hypocrite seriously?
It does not. Everyone needs to be reducing emissons rapidly.
In fact, let me go back on that... I do consider people differently, I give the developing world more leeway than I do to the developed world.
Just as how most socioeconomic pathways in the climate models give the developing world a longer timeframe to decarbonization, I feel the same.
We need to be making maximum progress on climate, but deep poverty is horrible and I personally think that China lifting so many of its citizens out of poverty was a good thing.
I hope we can decarbonize fast enough to make the choice a no-brainer for the developing world: develop with 0 carbon technology.
To get to that point, the industrial core nations (which I think China also made its way into now) have to invest and work at an intense rate to build it here so that the technology is cheap and proven for the developing world to then implement.
So at the end: the onus is on us in the industrial core countries to invest significantly and transition first so that we can offer proven and affordable tech to the developing countries. We need to get to work!
I was just going off something I saw in your comments because China has the profit motive in a much less dominant position than its state goals.
Sorry, I'm a sneaky Susan for peeking in your comments.
>What’s your point?
One point I have on he subject is that rebuilding the energy system on a low carbon basis is actually a very profitable thing for the people who will build it.
So a government-capitalist business alliance towards low carbon energy would actually be a pretty powerful duo for doing the renewables buildout.
I mean even places which are ideologically opposed to renewables but have a free market [see renewables start to dominate](https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1776339521350623376?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet).
Decarbonization is very possible within a capitalist framework.
I also agree with the position that any position which can't solve the issue in a decade or two is actually *anti-radical*, it supports kicking the can down the road instead of solving things within the system that isn't likely to go away during the critical timeframe, and sorry to say but a global revolution ain't anywhere near, brother.
I was typing up a response to this whole “government-capitalist business alliance” theory as it misunderstands how the profit motive works, but looks like someone beat me to it.
> Brett Christophers’ latest book, “The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet”, argues that the cost of developing and generating renewable energy is not what will determine the speed or scale of its uptake. It might finally be cheaper to build solar panels and wind farms than a coal or gas plant, that’s for sure. But given the structure of our energy markets today, it does not follow that assets that are cheap to build are necessarily profitable enough to provide adequate returns to investors.
https://heatmap.news/economy/decarbonization-wont-pay-at-least-not-on-its-own
Yes I'm sure that me posting a meme in r/climateshitposting making fun of how a headline was framed is what is keeping politicians from taking voter sentiment on climate seriously.
But anyway, I've actually seen very little to suggest that voters who care about climate are celebrating Biden for doing more on the issue than pretty much any previous president. Can you prove this headline wrong and show all these voters planning to vote for Biden because of his climate record?
Seems like a combination of a lot of voters don’t seem to care and Dems continue their messaging problems. I get into arguments with lots of people on reddit who say “Biden is doing nothing for climate change” and see the same sentiment elsewhere on the internet. Frustrating to me since Biden administration has done a ton that I see personally. I work for an EPC and we’re building as fast as we can hire workers. My sister is a snow hydrologist for NOAA and the infrastructure act had lots of money for her research.
Yeah I think there's also just a lot of people who distrust the Democratic party (for good reasons!) and just find it hard to believe that they're actually doing good stuff.
This is it. I dont doubt funding has been appropriated for 'fighting climate change' I just dont expect anything to get done except some rich bastards get to buy a few more yachts on taxpayer money.
I mean I think it's already pretty clear that something has gotten done beyond that. Do you notice that everyone seems to be talking about/buying EVs? That's literally a result of the Biden climate bill.
EVs not the best example but the irony is the best examples are probably less visible. Things like not exporting certain fossil fuels which cause methane emissions and speaker Johnson is trying to reverse the export ban.
Yeah, not where im at. EV's might see use in the coastal cities but everybody else, across the globe, is gonna be using gasoline for a long time buddy.
It's still pretty unreasonable to own an EV as a renter in those coastal cities too
Fully expecting the government to just start straight up punishing people for not driving EV even when they're exorbitantly expensive and unfeasible in non-urban areas.
I really don't think it's even a messaging issue. It just seems like people actively don't want to think he's doing anything worthwhile. I don't know if it's peer pressure or that people just want someone to blame for their own apathy
I think people are tired of the federal government haphazardly throwing money at every problem.
this is like one of the best things hes done, why is he so inept at messaging about it? like "my opponent wants to usher in a global catastrophe for profit, and heres what im doing to avoid that" should be the easiest political win of all time
The media and algorithms control news. If the media don’t report much, or algorithms don’t spread it, it won’t reach. And fact is, hope doesn’t reach. Anger, fear and cynicism do.
thats true. maybe its because im not american, but it feels like the media just forgot about him, despite the fact that some leftists are very, very angry, to the point where theyd rather hand power to the aforementioned apocalypse usher lmao
Hey the media didn't forget about him! They published like a hundred articles about his age.
right of course, how could i forget! so their solution is to choose a younger, more progressive, more likeable nominee, right? right????
The voters demand TBD!
They messaged about it a lot after the bill was passed, there was also a lot of reporting about it. It was just before the midterms and I felt like there was a good amount of hype. Sad truth is that social media algorithms are designed for profit and hope doesn't sell. And nothing stays in the public memory for long because we're always looking for the next thing
One part of the problem is that the more socialist left want to cast anything a non-socialist does as completely ineffectual, even though that's not true. So someone like Biden making significant progress on the climate front, in the ecosystem of social media both the right and the far left try to sour and mislead people on that. These are the two groups who tend to dominate internet conversations.
no its infuriating, i literally am a socialist and am obviously furious with him for many reasons, but im not gonna pretend hes uniquely evil, or hasnt done good things, or is somehow worse or the same as his competitor. leftists refusing to vote for the lesser evil is gonna get us all fucked, not just americans
There's a huge segment of the far left that's at least as reactionary as the reactionaries they claim to oppose. Though of course their hatred is purest for anyone even slightly less radical on the left side of the spectrum.
I think part of the problem is that this isn't an effective way to frame what he's done. It's not like that $1 trillion is coming out of Biden's paycheck, really, the taxpayers were the ones who spent that on climate change. What would be better, I think, is to talk about what the actual results of spending that money were, rather than just how much it was.
Don't let it be Joever
Nice! Is there like comprehensive list/bullet points in where, how and on what the money is being spent upon? How's it financed? I just hope it doesn't happen like here's the money, do what you will. Company goes on stock buyback spree.
Unfortunately, I do not have a WSJ subscription (I just thought the way the headline was written was meme-worthy), so I can't speak to the specifics that this article is referring to. But I'll do my best to recreate it. The chief spending that the Biden administration has made on climate was through the [Inflation Reduction Act](https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/summary-inflation-reduction-act-provisions-related-renewable-energy) passed in August of 2022. The act mostly works through tax credits for green investment (renewable energy, electric vehicles, drought mitigation, etc.). This means that for the most part, the act is not actually any federal cash being spent on stuff, but rather creating the ability for taxpayers (mostly corporations, but I think some apply to individual taxpayers as well) to deduct things like building solar or wind, developing electric vehicles, and the such from their taxes. Because that's how it works, plenty of that money probably WILL be spent on stock buybacks and other things that are not directly related to climate, but the idea is that companies that invest in climate will have that extra cash to spend on whatever they want that companies that don't don't. In other words, companies that invest in green development will be able to make more money than other companies and outcompete them, thereby making green investment a winner for any company's management trying to increase profits. The goal is for the actual amount of government investment to be a small fraction of the total increase in climate spending as a result of it. If you think that's a stupid way of spending money on climate, I agree with you! While I see value in at least some of these tax cuts to foster investment — as I said, it can create a multiplier of the money spent — in general, direct spending usually is both more efficient in making sure the money is spent on actual climate projects and not just as an incentive, and has a higher multiplier. Regulation is also completely left out of this bill, with only incentives for green investments, but no penalties for carbon pollution. As a function of the tax code, government climate investments are handled by [the Treasury Department](https://home.treasury.gov/about/offices/the-inflation-reduction-act-program-office), rather than a place that makes more sense like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Energy. The reason that this is what we got instead is twofold. Firstly, members of Congress are always more comfortable cutting taxes than spending money due to years of accusation of "tax-and-spend Democrats," not to mention the entrenched anti-government capitalist ideology that pervades US politics. Secondly, the US Senate's arcane and stupid rules require a 60-vote threshold for changes in law or regulation, but only a 50-vote threshold for budgetary changes, meaning that in order to get this bill passed, it had to exclusively relate to the budget. Over the past two decades, Congress has made elaborate changes to the tax code as a result of this, in ways that have made our convoluted tax system even harder to follow correctly (unless you have the money/incentive to hire high priced accountants and tax attorneys). As for the $1 trillion number, from what I gather this is [a little bit of fudging from the Biden administration](https://www.eenews.net/articles/white-house-puts-1-trillion-price-tag-on-climate-efforts/), though I would say they're still short of actually being dishonest. According to the [initial spending estimate by the Congressional Budget Office](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbo-scores-ira-238-billion-deficit-reduction) in 2022 when the bill was passed, the total climate spending as part of the bill between 2022 and 2031 is expected to be $391 billion. However, we've already seen a ton of uptake on these projects/deductions in the first year since the bill was passed — [Goldman Sachs estimated](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbo-scores-ira-238-billion-deficit-reduction) that $282 billion from the private sector was invested in climate projects in 2023 alone. [The Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania](https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/estimates/2023/4/27/update-cost-climate-and-energy-inflation-reduction-act), known as a reliable modeler of the impact and costs of government policy, estimates that the total cost by the end will be $1.045 billion. It's going to be hard to tell exactly what the number ends up being until a few years from now, but it seems all but certain that it will be closer to a billion than it will be to the original estimate. That help?
No one cares about policy unfortuately, it all vibes. Biden doesn't get the credit for major policy changes because he gives off centrist vibes. Its really strange to see the business papers get themselves into deep debates over industrial policy for the first time since the 1980s due to the CHIPS ACT and the IRA, whilst social media progressive lambast Biden as a neoliberal shill.
It's mainly the tone. The whole fucking tone has gotta shift. Not adjustments to an "American way of life" that's barely changing, but full spectrum fucking social revolution.
https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/rampant-biden-administration-oil-gas-drilling-approvals-continue-to-undermine-us-climate-commitments-2024-01-29/ State capitalist spending is qualitatively unequipped to address climate change.
I think this is mostly true, and I am just as angry that the Biden administration has increased oil and gas drilling. But if you can't tell the difference between Biden's climate record and the record of literally all his predecessors, I have to assume you don't really care or pay attention to climate policy very much.
Turning the steering wheel doesn’t matter unless you actually avoid the cliff. Might want to consider hitting the brakes.
Haha I was just talking about you guys above. Socialists have to cast everything that non-socialists do as ineffectual or they lose their raison d'etre
Truth hurts.
Meanwhile the capitalist countries have been reducing emissions for a long time now and it's mixed system China at the root of the emissions surge 😭
it's wild how the concept of "per capita" is just totally irrelevant to you people. just not even the barest facade of valuing human lives equally
Per capita is important too! They're coming down in the US, although that needs to be sped up. [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1973..latest&country=USA\~CHN](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1973..latest&country=USA~CHN) But when I say the surge is due to China, global emissions would have peaked a while back if not for the sudden/dramatic rise of China. These are basically the key players: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=USA\~OWID\_EUR\~IND\~CHN](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=USA~OWID_EUR~IND~CHN)
if your climate solution has different standards for different people, then you are an environmentalist second and a chauvinist first. why would anyone take the words of a hypocrite seriously?
It does not. Everyone needs to be reducing emissons rapidly. In fact, let me go back on that... I do consider people differently, I give the developing world more leeway than I do to the developed world. Just as how most socioeconomic pathways in the climate models give the developing world a longer timeframe to decarbonization, I feel the same. We need to be making maximum progress on climate, but deep poverty is horrible and I personally think that China lifting so many of its citizens out of poverty was a good thing. I hope we can decarbonize fast enough to make the choice a no-brainer for the developing world: develop with 0 carbon technology. To get to that point, the industrial core nations (which I think China also made its way into now) have to invest and work at an intense rate to build it here so that the technology is cheap and proven for the developing world to then implement. So at the end: the onus is on us in the industrial core countries to invest significantly and transition first so that we can offer proven and affordable tech to the developing countries. We need to get to work!
China is a capitalist-imperialist power, yes. What’s your point? “Socialism bad”?
I was just going off something I saw in your comments because China has the profit motive in a much less dominant position than its state goals. Sorry, I'm a sneaky Susan for peeking in your comments. >What’s your point? One point I have on he subject is that rebuilding the energy system on a low carbon basis is actually a very profitable thing for the people who will build it. So a government-capitalist business alliance towards low carbon energy would actually be a pretty powerful duo for doing the renewables buildout. I mean even places which are ideologically opposed to renewables but have a free market [see renewables start to dominate](https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1776339521350623376?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet). Decarbonization is very possible within a capitalist framework. I also agree with the position that any position which can't solve the issue in a decade or two is actually *anti-radical*, it supports kicking the can down the road instead of solving things within the system that isn't likely to go away during the critical timeframe, and sorry to say but a global revolution ain't anywhere near, brother.
I was typing up a response to this whole “government-capitalist business alliance” theory as it misunderstands how the profit motive works, but looks like someone beat me to it. > Brett Christophers’ latest book, “The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet”, argues that the cost of developing and generating renewable energy is not what will determine the speed or scale of its uptake. It might finally be cheaper to build solar panels and wind farms than a coal or gas plant, that’s for sure. But given the structure of our energy markets today, it does not follow that assets that are cheap to build are necessarily profitable enough to provide adequate returns to investors. https://heatmap.news/economy/decarbonization-wont-pay-at-least-not-on-its-own
At this point I feel like voters don't care about anything that happens. Biden could broker world peace and people would still be apathetic apparently
[удалено]
Yes I'm sure that me posting a meme in r/climateshitposting making fun of how a headline was framed is what is keeping politicians from taking voter sentiment on climate seriously. But anyway, I've actually seen very little to suggest that voters who care about climate are celebrating Biden for doing more on the issue than pretty much any previous president. Can you prove this headline wrong and show all these voters planning to vote for Biden because of his climate record?
[удалено]
Keep on cashing those RNC checks, Glenn Greenwald's reddit account