this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024

81 points (91.8% liked)

politics

25335 readers

2447 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

U.S. Carbon Emissions Fell in 2023 as Coal Use Tumbled to New Lows (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I literally just today learned that the "Biden is destroying the climate, we emitted more greenhouse gas than ever before in 2023" talking point isn't even "not the whole story" -- it's actually the complete opposite of what actually happened.

Not only are we still way below the high we set in 2005, the rate is still steadily going down. Maybe the people saying this mean the world as a whole set a record, and they're blaming the entire world's emissions on Biden? I have no idea.

Anyway, this is what actually happened.

Edit: Hang on, I am wrong or partly wrong. The talking-point version is that US set a record for fossil fuel extraction, not emissions, which is completely accurate and also still terrifying. So fair play I guess.

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Most of the criticism I'm seeing regarding Biden's environmental record involves the record amount of fossil fuel extraction that happened under his administration. I suspect that's also the same criticism OP has seen, but it's easier to try to replace it with a strawman that can be easily knocked down.

To what extent Biden is responsible for the decrease in coal emissions is unclear, but let's just give him sole credit for the sake of argument. It's possible to be happy about the decrease in emissions while still being livid at the record oil extraction.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep, a fossil fuel industry whose potential for methane emissions the government has been badly underestimating and which rose in 2023. And instead of holding those companies accountable for any of that, we just decided to hand out a bunch of monetizable and transferable tax credits to renewable energy companies that are being bought by corps like BP, who take the money and just keep on drilling

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's your take on this?

Here's an update on how things have been working out in practice. How would you update that 40% figure, in terms of how things have played out in the time since the law was enacted?

What would be your recommendation to do instead, and what would be your estimate of your recommendation's effect in terms of reduction in US emissions level?

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with the ends, but I have my suspicions the ends aren't going to be as effective as we've estimated, because estimating the responses of independent actors to an inducement is really tough even in simple controlled experimental settings, and energy markets are anything but simple. Also, this all just reminds me way too much of when we gave telecom companies subsidies to build out better internet infrastructure in the late 90s and early 00s and they were able to exploit legal loopholes to just take the money without actually building out their networks and serving unserved populations. The companies were dealing with are smart, they've been dealing with and exploiting government regulations and institutions for a very long time, and they are masters of having their cake and eating it too when it comes to this stuff.

Moreover, I really think we should not be giving one dime to oil and gas companies under any circumstances, whether its indirectly through these no strings attached tax credits we're giving to renewable energy companies that are majority owned by traditional energy companies or all the money we're throwing at carbon capture research that's probably not going to return meaningfully useful technology in time to matter. With campaign finance and lobbying laws as loose as they are and with these companies' histories of bankrolling some of the most harmful lawmakers and judges in our nation's history, we're basically feeding the monsters we have to fight. Also, it just sends a terrible message to all the other business leaders and corporations of the world if you can literally knowingly destroy the global climate for decades and never face any kind of punishment.

However, the IRA did get passed and those subsidies are out there now, and I think it's possible they will do some good and that blowing them up now would be really disruptive and damaging to a private clean energy industry that's currently* our best hope of not completely destroying the environment, so if I could wave a magic wand I would leave everything from the IRA in place and just add a lot more fees and penalties and taxes that targeted the oil and gas industries on top of it. Subsidies of any sort turn my stomach, but I think subsidies plus targeted fees and penalties is our best bet with where we're at now.

Ultimately, I think we should nationalize all these companies and turn them into public agencies with open records open meetings and elected administrators who hire subject matter experts that guide the administrators' policy decisions*, but I appreciate that's a number of steps away from where we are now and I think there will have to be some kind of gradual process to get there.

**This is also what I want to have happen to health insurance, education, housing, and social media (with the stipulation that private market based competition to these public agencies is totally encouraged in situations where it's practicably possible (e.g. power grids usually require monopolies of certain aspects, but there's no reason we couldn't have smaller more specialized private insurance companies in a country with publicly administered single payer universal healthcare))

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good stuff. What is your estimate of the total predicted impact on emissions of Biden's climate bill, now that we've seen it in action for a little bit? And your estimate of the overall impact of what you're talking about here?

It's a challenging question I'm sure, but you weighed in on whether Biden's bill is good or bad and what he should be doing instead, so presumably you claim for yourself enough knowledge to estimate the impacts of these different approaches. Yes?

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, seems like this legislation has done wonders for the sealion population at least

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I made the whole meme and then you edited your comment 😢

Anyway, I'm not surprised you're more interested in constructing narratives that fit the illusion you're trying to construct, than in answering basic questions about those narratives to test if they correspond to reality.

I'm not being, like, super friendly, but literally all I'm doing is asking you for details about what you're claiming is happening.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oooh

I see, yeah, that's accurate. I more or less assumed that fuel extracted would equal with fuel burned but that's not the case.

So yeah while I can give credit for the climate bill and acknowledge that Trump is 10 times worse on this issue and acknowledge that Biden's one of the forces in government trying to yank the emissions in the correct direction and direct the negativity on the climate at the people who are trying to water down even the not-enough stuff that he's trying to do, it's also fair to still be absolutely terrified at what the sum total output of the US government for the last 4 years has been. In particular, those charts of US Energy Administration predictions for what will happen in their perfect scenario look a lot like the end of the world.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There are a couple of intertwined issues. First, sanctions on Russia caused a sharp reduction of the amount of oil they export. The US increased its own exports to mitigate the pain felt by the EU, who had relied on Russian oil.

Second, as discussed above the IRA will drastically reduce emissions by the US. In order to pass the bill, Manchin demanded new drilling permits in the Gulf. They threw him that bone, because even after accounting for new drilling the IRA has an overwhelmingly net beneficial effect on global CO2.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

And on Friday, the Department of Energy announced a conditional $189 million loan guarantee to LongPath Technologies, which plans to mount lasers on giant towers to monitor methane leaks at oil and gas fields across the country.

That's pretty neat. Towers with frickin' lasers on their heads

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

America’s greenhouse gas emissions fell 1.9 percent in 2023, in large part because the burning of coal to produce electricity plummeted to its lowest level in half a century, according to estimates published on Wednesday by the Rhodium Group, a nonpartisan research firm.

The researchers looked at planet-warming emissions generated by transportation, electricity, industry and buildings but did not include pollution from agriculture, which accounts for roughly 10 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gases.

To speed action on climate change, Congress in 2022 approved a record amount of federal money for low-emissions technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear reactors, electric vehicles and hydrogen fuels.

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a regulation that would, for the first time, require oil and gas producers to detect and fix leaks of methane from hundreds of thousands of existing wells.

And on Friday, the Department of Energy announced a conditional $189 million loan guarantee to LongPath Technologies, which plans to mount lasers on giant towers to monitor methane leaks at oil and gas fields across the country.

But globally, carbon dioxide emissions still soared to record levels last year, driven in large part by an increase in fossil fuel use in China, India and other fast-growing countries.

The original article contains 834 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

fuel extraction is hardly a pragmatic tool to measure efficacy of policy, so i think your original point still stands. i’d even go so far as to call pointing out rising extraction while emissions are falling “cherry picking,” and i generally think that phrase is overused.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh yeah, I definitely think it's cherry-picking an individual metric for the purpose of criticizing the one guy high up in government who seems actually to be trying to reduce the planet-destroying death spiral of "let's consume more every year until it's physically impossible to continue and the planet is set and committed on a self-continuing course of annihilation." And, I think the overall goal of the that cherry-picked criticism is to produce a result in government 10 times worse than whatever reasonable-or-not criticisms you might be able to lob at Biden while he's fighting the inertia of the entire federal government and fossil-fuel-lobbying machine with a really surprising amount of success.

Just, well, trying to get my facts straight at the same time as I'm thinking that.