Presidential hopeful Biden looking for ‘middle ground’ climate policy
33 replies, posted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden-climate-exclusive/presidential-hopeful-biden-looking-for-middle-ground-climate-policy-idUSKCN1SG18G
There shouldn't be a middle ground when it comes to this.
What a limp dick milquetoast "centrist" asshole.
As long as I can enjoy my classic rides IDGAF what other environmental measures get taken. And if that means I have to convert them to run on something renewable like alcohol, then so be it, as long as I can still enjoy them every day.
translation:
"I'll push for green energy unless someone pays me otherwise"
Pussy.
That middle ground will be underwater.
Where it suggests he is taking a ‘middle-ground’ approach, that’s because he hasn’t endorsed the Green New Deal, which supposedly aims to end absolutely all fossil fuel usage in the US within the next 10 years.
The article does outline several of his announced policies regarding climate change, including rejoining the Paris Agreement, re-implementing regulations that have been scrapped by the Trump administration, and support for nuclear power (I know Facepunch has a boner for that).
so we'll only somewhat save the planet instead, got it. Please people stop supporting this guy.
Obama nostallgia and desire for normalcy trumps absolutely everything.
You should care what environmental measures are taken though. This is our future and we're not doing nearly enough to save it. At any rate, it's not likely that classic cars are going to be banned. I expect to see government subsidies and restrictions on the manufacture and sale of polluting vehicles to be far more effective and likelier to happen.
I'm confused. The article is just speculation. It just repeats "fighting global warming with out attempting to alienate fosil fuels.
The second source, a former energy department official advising Biden’s campaign who asked not to be named, said the policy could also be supportive of nuclear energy and fossil fuel options like natural gas and carbon capture technology, which limit emissions from coal plants and other industrial facilities.
That's the most substantive claim in the whole article if I read it correctly. Even if that's his stance, doesn't sound so bad. Natural Gas does have a smaller carbon output, carbon capture is a promising technology, and you can't click your heels together and get rid of the deeply rooted fosil fuel economy overnight. Correct me on any of those if I'm wrong, I'm not a deeply educated on the matters. I'm actualy more of a sanders guy, and I resent Biden’s neoliberal slant, but in same breath I'm finding somethings concerning as a "You don't agree with me 100% thus your the enemy" attitude.
There's stances to make middle grounds on, and this isn't one of them. When the two arguments are "Let's use Earth's resources and make it uninhabitable for most in 100 years" and "Let's not do that", the middle ground isn't "Okay let's use Earths resources at a rate so we can make it to 200 years instead."
"somewhat save the planet" would be the best case scenario given drastic climate action. Biden's "middle ground" means devastation of earth's ecosystems.
They will be de-facto banned if legislation mandating EVs pops up, which is already happening in some cities. I don't mind having to find a renewable fuel to run them off of...such conversions are quite easy to do and these older engines are pretty indifferent as to what fuel they run on so long as it's flammable...but I'll be damned if I'm flat out disallowed from enjoying them.
Not only that, but the major problem isn't personal car use anyway. Fossil fuel electrical grid supplies and ocean-going vessels burning heavy oil 6 are the major problems. But nothing's ever done about that because they have super powerful lobbies backing them up. Everyday people like us are demonized because we want to enjoy our daily commutes while the real polluters go completely unbothered.
Pisses me off something fierce. We could meet 2050 CO2 goals in just a decade or so if we'd shut down every coal plant in the US and replace it with something like nuclear or geothermal. And maritime nuclear reactors have a 100% safety record, so why aren't we putting them in container ships? Surely giants like Maersk would enjoy not having to pay for fuel anymore...
I think people like me are frustrated because even reaching the Paris targets will still lead to the Earth warming quite a lot by 2050. In terms of human lifespans, greenhouse gas levels are unlikely to reverse very quickly even if we stopped releasing any CO2 today, so it's vital that we do everything we can as soon as we can, not play for short-term gain at the expense of future generations. Carbon capture technology is interesting but it's too immature to rely on at the moment. Natural gas is certainly the cleanest fossil fuel but it's still quite polluting.
You also need to take into account the positive feedback loop of runaway warming. More and more ice is melting every year, lowering the Earth's albedo (levels of reflection on the surface), meaning that the Earth will get warmer. Ice also has a lot of methane trapped in it that is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Forests, a natural carbon sink, are not only being destroyed by people but are also getting annihilated by forest fires at increasing rates, releasing more CO2. All of these problems and more feedback into themselves and it's difficult to predict how bad this could end up being for us.
Yes, yes very wise. Quite considered, just like partial abortions and semihandgrenades.
we'll only destroy 50% of the forests!!!
truly middle ground
This. Even the Paris Agreement is a limp-dick half-measure. People don't realize just how dire the situation we are in really is, and how decisively we need to act if we want to protect the future of our species.
Even switching 100% to no-emission energy sources isn't enough. Carbon emissions aren't even the only problem we face in terms of ecological disaster. The entirety of human civilization needs to change course. We need to entirely overhaul our economic systems to focus on stability instead of growth, and in fact many of the worlds economies need to reverse direction and begin scaling down instead of up. We need to make enormous strides in reducing the rampant wastefulness of our culture and we need to be willing to accept that we're going to have to sacrifice some of the small conveniences of our current lifestyles to achieve it.
It's a serious problem that in 2019 even among people who acknowledge human-caused ecological disaster, people still think that there is a solution in which they don't have to make any sacrifices to their personal comfort whatsoever and society can essentially continue on exactly as it always has and magic technology will just fix everything. It's just not going to happen. People are going to have to accept that for our descendants to have a future, the world has to change, and it is going to require sacrifices that affect them personally.
My only concern is that unless something dramatically changes with human attitudes, feels like asking for the extremely bold, gets you extremely ignored. The irony that change is thrust upon them rather they want it or not is not lost on me. All I can say is we can't go to fast or they dig in, and we can't move to slow or it's to late. A tricky pace to maintain.
I know what you're getting at, but the last 20 years have shown us that the Democratic party always loses when its politicians insist on dancing to the beat of the Republicans' drum. As soon as the Democrats concede and compromise on some right-wing policy, the Republicans just move farther right. This is annoying enough for economic issues such as taxes taxes, but infuriating to me when the fate of humanity hangs in the balance. If the Dems try and go for middle-of-the-road shit on Climate Change, the Republicans will just shift.
When your house is on fire, you don't seal off half of it and hope the flames will be content with it. You deal with it before it snuffs your life and your entire family's.
It's frustrating that even now some politicians say they want a middle ground approach, but honestly, the way corporate money's red-taped up DC like a freshman pranked by the fraternity with duct tape, it's really easier said than done to go in there with a "Alright oil boys, OUT!" sledgehammer, even if we did elect all-extreme-left candidates next year.
Compromise is the fruit of successful politics, but yes, some compromises are worse than others. There's no easy answer here, really.
In reading the article, he doesn't actually seem to be compromising with the GOP on anything -
The backbone of the policy will likely include the United States re-joining the Paris Climate Agreement and preserving U.S. regulations on emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency that Trump has sought to undo, according to one of the sources, Heather Zichal, who is part of a team advising Biden on climate change. She previously advised President Barack Obama.
The second source, a former energy department official advising Biden’s campaign who asked not to be named, said the policy could also be supportive of nuclear energy and fossil fuel options like natural gas and carbon capture technology, which limit emissions from coal plants and other industrial facilities.
A spokesman for Biden’s campaign, TJ Ducklo, declined to comment on Biden’s emerging climate policy or his advisers, but said Biden takes climate change seriously. “Joe Biden has called climate change an ‘existential threat,’ and as Vice President was instrumental in orchestrating the Paris Climate Accord,” Ducklo said in an emailed statement.
It appears that he's not really looking to not be environmentalist, just not endorsing the Green New Deal, of which...
Biden has yet to comment publicly on the Green New Deal, and has said little about climate change in his campaign stops.
It's implicit in what has been said. Politicians often don't outright say what they think because it's a lot easier for them. The fact he has not commented on the GND is a red flag, for a start.
I mean it depends on what we mean by middle ground really. If by middle ground he means effectively policy that can combat climate change while also appealing to those that wouldn't necessarily care then that's not a bad idea. Whether you like it or not if you want to get any climate change policy through you're going to have to get it past those people, so creating policy that also offers something tangible for those people while also fighting climate change isn't exactly a bad idea.
Have you considered you're inferring what you want to hear instead of him implying it?
Your "classic rides" worth the planet to you?
Jenny has admitted before that she does not care about people she doesn't know, so I guess the fact Climate Change will affect the next generation and poorer countries more is why she considers hobbies more important.
American individualism is a fucking blight on our planet.
Then maybe he should come out and say explicitly so we don't have to guess? Paris agreement and nuclear energy are baby steps. If he wants to play nice with fossil fuel industry, it's a no go.
Here's the thing I keep trying to stress to people: even if you legitimately believe in a middle-ground (for anything, not just climate change), if you concede to the middle position up front, you're never going to get anything you want. Obama conceded the public option immediately in 2008 and we got a shitty watered down right-wing individual mandate healthcare plan. You should fight as hard and uncompromising as possible for the furthest left position so that if/when that fails, then you have the ability to concede towards the middle. The Republicans never concede, ever, and it works for them them the overwhelming majority of the time. Democrats and liberals need to grow a backbone when it comes to policy fights.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.