Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Roger Ramjets]

He doesn’t say it’s a long term solution, it’s a stopgap measure that we could use to bridge to getting to zero emissions. He also explains why planting trees is not going to make a big difference. And he says that he doesn’t expect serious, timely action to happen until the average citizen really starts to feel the consequences of global warming.

He's right about the last one - which is already starting to happen. I wouldn't trust his opinion on the rest. As I said, this 'stopgap' measure would simply make things worse in the long run. Better to keep those consequences rolling in so people realize we have to get serious.

The problem I have with Thunderf00t is he's a 'know it all' who makes bold statements about things he hasn't properly researched, and expects us to swallow it because he used to be a nuclear scientist. He's great at debunking (obvious) fraudulent product claims, not so great at understanding the complex science of climate change.

 

[dann]

No, he is not right about the last one. From a brand new article about offshore wind farms:

A single turn provides enough electricity to power one Norwegian house for a day. The blades rotate 10 to 15 times a minute; there are 1,440 minutes in a day, 525,600 minutes in a year …
Monster machines floating on the waves could be the future of wind energy (WashingtonPost, Sep 26, 2023)

Why do we always hear about how many houses wind turbines can power, when reality is that most of the power doesn't go to houses but to industry?

This floating wind farm won’t supply electricity to shore but instead will provide 35 percent of the annual electricity power demand — about 88 megawatts — for five offshore oil platforms, which use large amounts of energy to separate oil, gas and water from the wells.

And why do some people always point to the growing population of Earth, as if ordinary people are the main beneficiaries of the burning of fossil fuels? The majority of people aren't oil barons, don't fly in private (or any kind of) jets and don't plan cities based almost exclusively on the burning of fossil fuels.
The growing population of oil barons and billionaires is the problem.
They are also the ones who pay corrupt climate scientists to confuse people about anthropogenic global warming, not the ordinary people that The Troll Army of Big Oil manage to confuse.

'Serious, timely action' won't happen until the average oil baron and politician really starts to feel the consequences of ruining the climate for the rest of us, which won't be until we rise up against them.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

USA #1 baby

New Green Line extension already so defective that trains are forced to move at walking pace

Less than one year after the final branch of the much-heralded Green Line extension opened for business, the MBTA said a problem with the tracks has reduced train speeds to just 3 miles per hour along stretches that add up to more than a mile.

Even by the T’s low standards in recent years, it’s an extraordinary development: Tracks that opened for passenger service to Union Square in March 2022 and to Medford last December and were shut down for repairs in recent months are now so defective, the T says, that trains are moving slower than many people walk.

T spokesperson Joe Pesaturo said the new slow zones, 11 on the Medford branch and 3 on the Union Square branch, are necessary after inspections this month found the rails are too close together at many spots. Operating trains at full speed on tracks that are too narrow risks derailment, track experts said.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/09/26/metro/mbta-green-line-extension-new-slow-zones/

 

[The_Animus]

No, he is not right about the last one. From a brand new article about offshore wind farms:



Why do we always hear about how many houses wind turbines can power, when reality is that most of the power doesn't go to houses but to industry?



And why do some people always point to the growing population of Earth, as if ordinary people are the main beneficiaries of the burning of fossil fuels? The majority of people aren't oil barons, don't fly in private (or any kind of) jets and don't plan cities based almost exclusively on the burning of fossil fuels.
The growing population of oil barons and billionaires is the problem.
They are also the ones who pay corrupt climate scientists to confuse people about anthropogenic global warming, not the ordinary people that The Troll Army of Big Oil manage to confuse.

'Serious, timely action' won't happen until the average oil baron and politician really starts to feel the consequences of ruining the climate for the rest of us, which won't be until we rise up against them.

Probably because most of those industries exist and contribute to global warming because a large population of people use the products. The more people using those products, the more the industry grows, and the more they contribute to climate change. And until enough people either stop using those products or in some other way force those industries to change they'll keep on doing what they've always done.

 

[dann]

Probably because most of those industries exist and contribute to global warming because a large population of people use the products. The more people using those products, the more the industry grows, and the more they contribute to climate change. And until enough people either stop using those products or in some other way force those industries to change they'll keep on doing what they've always done.

The ideology that the market economy is about providing the end consumers with goods is very alluring, but also very far from the truth. It might be true if everything ended up being owned and consumed by those consumers or households or whatever, but as it is, wealth isn't exactly equally distributed. Some people have private jets, others live very mundane, down-to-earth lives and can't pay their bills:

* The wealthiest 10% of American households now own 89% of all U.S. stocks, a record high that highlights the stock market’s role in increasing wealth inequality.
* The top 1% gained over $6.5 trillion in corporate equities and mutual fund wealth during the pandemic, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve.
* The bottom 90% of Americans held about 11% of stocks, and added $1.2 trillion in wealth during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The wealthiest 10% of Americans own a record 89% of all U.S. stocks (CNBC, Oct 18, 2021)

Almost three-quarters, 72%, of Americans say they aren’t financially secure given their current financial standing, and more than a quarter said they will likely never be financially secure, according to a survey by Bankrate.
Here’s why Americans can’t stop living paycheck to paycheck (CNBC, Aug 17, 2023)

This ideology is usually combined with the other ideology that if it weren't for those greedy end consumers, the insane amount of fossil fuels being burned and thus emitting CO₂ wouldn't have been burned - as if the economy is all about pleasing those consumers.
Industrialists look at the bottom line and burn fossil fuels as long as it's cheaper for them to do so. Notice that even this recent article pretends that subsidies for fossil fuels are all about the consumers:

Soaring energy costs have led to civil unrest, which has made political leaders wary. World governments spent $500 billion last year to help consumers pay their energy bills, according to the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based watchdog.
Canada, a giant oil producer, urges others to end fossil fuel subsidies (WashingtonPost, Sep 22, 2023)

Meanwhile:

The world’s biggest fossil fuel companies recently released their 2022 earnings reports, revealing record-breaking profits last year; just five companies–ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and TotalEnergies–reported a total of nearly $200 billion in profits. At the same time, the world is incurring record losses due to extreme weather events. Thanks to advances in attribution science, we now understand many of these extreme events have been worsened by climate change. The fossil fuel industry plays the dominant role globally in causing climate change and therefore their profits come at the expense of our global health and safety.
Fossil Fuel Companies Make Billions in Profit as We Suffer Billions in Losses (Union of Concerned Scientists, Feb 21, 2023)

So you should focus on "...or in some other way force those industries to change."

 

[The_Animus]

The ideology that the market economy is about providing the end consumers with goods is very alluring, but also very far from the truth. It might be true if everything ended up being owned and consumed by those consumers or households or whatever, but as it is, wealth isn't exactly equally distributed. Some people have private jets, others live very mundane, down-to-earth lives and can't pay their bills:





This ideology is usually combined with the other ideology that if it weren't for those greedy end consumers, the insane amount of fossil fuels being burned and thus emitting CO₂ wouldn't have been burned - as if the economy is all about pleasing those consumers.
Industrialists look at the bottom line and burn fossil fuels as long as it's cheaper for them to do so. Notice that even this recent article pretends that subsidies for fossil fuels are all about the consumers:

Meanwhile:



So you should focus on "...or in some other way force those industries to change."

I agree that corporations and the rich bear a vast majority of the blame. I also understand there are manipulations and other factors at play. I don't believe that absolves the average person from any responsibility. Many people are in a situation such that they have no real choice and have to contribute to climate change because they can't afford a better option or various other legitimate reasons. There are also plenty of people who do have options and choose not too out of convenience or preference, or because it's cheaper even when they can easily afford it.

As far as population, more people means more resources consumed, and more environmental damage whether that's pollution, less clean water, or climate change. The population in 1800 was around 1 billion. If somehow the population had stayed steady at 1 billion instead of the 8 fold increase, would climate change even be a thing?

 

[dann]

I agree that corporations and the rich bear a vast majority of the blame. I also understand there are manipulations and other factors at play. I don't believe that absolves the average person from any responsibility. Many people are in a situation such that they have no real choice and have to contribute to climate change because they can't afford a better option or various other legitimate reasons. There are also plenty of people who do have options and choose not to out of convenience or preference, or because it's cheaper even when they can easily afford it.

That is why I have stressed that the way to go is to make the right choices convenient. See for instance the Copenhagen example in post 964: convenient, cheap and healthy! What's not to like?!

As far as population, more people means more resources consumed, and more environmental damage whether that's pollution, less clean water, or climate change. The population in 1800 was around 1 billion. If somehow the population had stayed steady at 1 billion instead of the 8 fold increase, would climate change even be a thing?

Yes, climate change would still be thing if the fossil-fuel industry and billionaires were still a thing. The mere number of people was never the problem. The problem was and is the burning of fossil fuels. You have to take into consideration how many of your 1 billion people are Americans. It seems to be a hell of lot more important than the number of people.
Your Malthusian way of looking at things is just plain wrong. It's misdirection.

If you insist that decreasing the population is the solution, now you know where to start!

 

[dann]

Good article by Noah Smith:

the discussions seem stuck back in 2010, when solar power and electric vehicles were prohibitively expensive. For example, you still see tons of polls asking people whether they care more about economic growth or stopping climate change. For example, here’s one from July 2023: Climate or Economic Growth?
In 2010, this poll would have made sense. In 2010, decarbonizing the global economy really would have required big cutbacks in our standard of living. But to ask this question in a poll in 2023 reflects a deep misunderstanding of how technology has changed since 2010. And this misunderstanding — this failure to update our sense of what is possible — is absolutely poisoning every aspect of the climate debate in America.
Our climate change debates are out of date - Solar and batteries are going to win, and our thinking needs to adjust accordingly. (Noahpinion, Sep 8, 2023)

Go to the article to see the graph of The Price of Electricity from New Power Plants: 2009 to 2019.

 

[The_Animus]

That is why I have stressed that the way to go is to make the right choices convenient. See for instance the Copenhagen example in post 964: convenient, cheap and healthy! What's not to like?!




Yes, climate change would still be thing if the fossil-fuel industry and billionaires were still a thing. The mere number of people was never the problem. The problem was and is the burning of fossil fuels. You have to take into consideration how many of your 1 billion people are Americans. It seems to be a hell of lot more important than the number of people.
Your Malthusian way of looking at things is just plain wrong. It's misdirection.

If you insist that decreasing the population is the solution, now you know where to start!

I'm not insisting it's the solution. You asked why people mention population and I told you why. While I do think a lower and stable worldwide population would be good for all sorts of reasons it's too late for that as far as climate change.

I disagree that resource use would be the same for 8 billion people as 1 billion or that if the population was only 1 billion it somehow wouldn't mirror the current distributing of wealth and resource use and instead everyone would use resources akin to what Americans use. I disagree that if the population were stable at 1 billion since 1800 we would still have this issue. Other than that I think we're mostly on the same page actually as far as what needs to happen moving forward to actually deal with this crisis.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The mere number of people was never the problem. The problem was and is the burning of fossil fuels. You have to take into consideration how many of your 1 billion people are Americans. It seems to be a hell of lot more important than the number of people.

Maybe it wasn't a thing, but it's becoming one.

The big problem now is all the people who aren't Americans but want to have the same lifestyle - particularly in India and China. The Chinese government knows this. They have done the sums and know what they have to do - and they are doing it. But of course China has the advantage of not being democratic, so when the government puts its mind to something the people fall in line - unlike the west where governments who push for more action get voted out.

 

[The Atheist]

If you ever needed more reasons to just ignore the warming planet and instead dance at the demise of humankind, here's a good one: https://www.motherjones.com/environ...-jet-service-dogs-environmentalists-growling/

As you recycle your plastics and take the slow eco-friendly bus to work, spare a thought for the beloved pets in jets who create more greenhouse gases in one trip than you probably will in the next 12 months.

Bathurst this weekend too. Let's celebrate the demise in style. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67017021

 

[Roger Ramjets]

If you ever needed more reasons to just ignore the warming planet and instead dance at the demise of humankind, here's a good one: https://www.motherjones.com/environ...-jet-service-dogs-environmentalists-growling/

Nope. It's another reason for higher taxes on fossil fuels (and rich people).

But...

K9 Jets emphasises that it does not own and operate any aircraft but is a “public charter operator.” The company said its service was not aimed at the super-rich, with seat prices comparable to cargo prices for dogs with an air ticket for their owners. It added that it only operated flights at capacity.

Golder said: “We take our responsibility to the environment seriously and take action to limit our impact by committing to offset the carbon emissions of every flight we operate. We do this by working closely with trusted experts in carbon compliance and carbon reduction, who provide the calculations and support projects required to offset the carbon emissions from every flight.”

In 2021 Heathrow Airport served 17 million international passengers, an average of ~47,000 per day. This year the numbers will be even higher - but how many will be dog owners taking their pets? Ten, a hundred? I'm betting it's very few, certainly not enough to significantly move the needle. And K9 Jets say that they are offsetting the carbon emissions. At a ticket price of £8,166 they may be telling the truth.

Anybody who argues that they shouldn't be cutting their own emissions because of this is simply practicing whataboutism, a morally and factually bankrupt position. If every aircraft flight had its emissions offset we would be a lot closer to solving the problem. If every other use of fossil fuel was treated similarly we wouldn't even have the problem.

But while the average person is quick to point the finger at excesses of the rich, tell them that they have to pay the true cost of their own activities and it's a different story. They balk at even the most minor offset. In New Zealand, after decades of doing nothing, the government finally introduced the 'Clean Car Discount' which offered a rebate of ~US$5,400 for zero-emission vehicles (ie. EVs), rising to a fee of ~US$3,300 for the most polluting models. This was immediately branded a 'ute tax', despite not going even half way towards making 'ute' owners pay the true cost of their emissions.

Of course as soon as this discount was announced, farmers rushed out and bought the most expensive polluting vehicle they could get their hands on before the cutoff date, and the National party made revoking it a cornerstone of their campaign policies. Because short-term self-interest is all they care about. No doubt those people are pointing at that Guardian article right now to 'prove' that they aren't the ones who are the real problem.

As you recycle your plastics...

Plastic pollution is a different matter, which we need to address no matter happens to global warming. Where people are flying their pets to has no bearing on it - even if you're just looking for an excuse to continue being a polluter.

Bathurst this weekend too. Let's celebrate the demise in style. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67017021

I don't see any problem with using fossil fuels in racing events, provided people understand that it's not an endorsement of them. Would be nice if they had electric events though. I really enjoyed watching Formula E on TV. The races were surprisingly exciting and not so long that they became tiresome.

Well what do you know,
Challenge Bathurst’s environmental win

Thursday 21 October, 2021

For the first time ever, Mount Panorama will host a carbon neutral event when the 2021 Challenge Bathurst takes place next month.

To encourage a more sustainable future for Australian motorsport, Challenge Bathurst organisers, along with partners Accelerate Events and the Bathurst Regional Council have enlisted Greenfleet to get involved with the event...

“While it’s hard to fundamentally change the amount of carbon emissions, due to the engine type of most cars suitable for Challenge Bathurst, it’s easy to offset the emissions by partnering with an organisation like Greenfleet.

...this is also an emotional decision based on our competitor’s desire to do what they love and offset the impact so we can all keep doing this for the next 30 years and more.

“We don’t have to wait until 2050 to start being ‘net zero’ today.

 

[The Atheist]

Nope. It's another reason for higher taxes on fossil fuels (and rich people).

Which country has introduced those taxes so far?

And K9 Jets say that they are offsetting the carbon emissions.

Yeah, because planting trees totally offsets nox pumped directly into stratosphere.

In New Zealand, after decades of doing nothing, the government finally introduced the 'Clean Car Discount' which ...

...will be kicked to touch this year as one of National's "100-day" promises.

Well what do you know,
Challenge Bathurst’s environmental win

Greenwashing of the finest kind. It fits neatly with certain Aussie politician's claim that they only produce a gajillionth of the world's carbon emissions while making 35% of the world's coal exports.

The carbon emissions of the race are a fraction of the amount generated by the 200,000 people who drive their cars to the event.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Which country has introduced those taxes so far?

None that I know of.

The country with the highest gasoline levy is the UK at 52.95 pence per litre (about 50% higher than New Zealand's NZ$0.70 per litre). It's classed as a 'road' tax, but goes into the general fund and so can be used for global warming mitigation. This levy also applies to biodiesel and bioethanol. LPG, natural gas and heating oil are taxed at lower rates.

However, like most countries, the UK doesn't levy any taxes on aviation fuel for international flights. The main reason for this is that the fuel is effectively being 'exported'. If it was taxed then planes would just carry more fuel from other countries that don't tax it, which would increase emissions because aircraft carrying more fuel are heavier and need more power to fly. The UK got around this problem by introducing Air Passenger Duty. Long distance flights (over 2000 nautical miles) attract a higher tax, and passengers on big planes equipped to carry fewer passengers are taxed even more - £554 for a long distance flight. Maybe that's not enough, but it does go some way towards taxing passengers according to how much CO₂ they emit.

Yeah, because planting trees totally offsets nox pumped directly into stratosphere.

The method used wasn't specified, but yes - planting trees is one way to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Actually one of the reasons we have a problem is that so much forest has been cut down and the land used in ways that that don't sequester so much carbon. If only we could stop the trees we plant from burning up...

...will be kicked to touch this year as one of National's "100-day" promises.

Yes, it's sad. We can only hope the Greens get enough seats to force National into a coalition with them and drop their anti-climate policies. If that doesn't happen then we know who to blame - the voters.

Greenwashing of the finest kind. It fits neatly with certain Aussie politician's claim that they only produce a gajillionth of the world's carbon emissions while making 35% of the world's coal exports.

There is a lot of opposition to this in Australia. In some states up to 25% of electricity is now being generated by rooftop solar, driving wholesales rates down and making coal less economic. This is a way that individuals can send a powerful message to power companies, while also saving money.

At the other end, Australia's coal exports will drop as China ramps up its nuclear and renewables, and then coal will be a declining industry. Coal production in Australia peaked in 2019 and has been declining since, down 12% in 2022. Maybe it will pick up again this year or maybe not, depending on what China does. But domestic consumption will continue to fall as renewables take over.

The carbon emissions of the race are a fraction of the amount generated by the 200,000 people who drive their cars to the event.

Correct, which is why I am not opposed to the competitors using fossil fuels. However making the effort to pay for their carbon emissions sends the right message. I have no problem with this method for minor uses like this. In the future we will still want to use some fossil fuel, even if it's just to run things like vintage cars and steam trains. They won't be using enough to make a difference so there's no harm - except for the message. That's why offsetting it with something to make it 'carbon neutral' is important.

As for the '200,000 people who drive their cars to the event', they know what to do about that. Drive an electric car, or don't go and watch it on TV instead. Unless they prefer to purchase carbon credits instead of course, like the competitors (may) do. Or perhaps just install a shed-load of rooftop solar to force coal out of the picture. We could have millions of people still driving gas cars and it would be OK, provided everything else was 'carbon positive' to make up for it.

I won't chastise anyone for driving a gas car if they really need it, or even just because they prefer it - provided they are willing to pay the true cost. By 2030 electric cars will be capable of doing everything they need (and more), but if they want to continue driving their old gas car with petrol at $10 a litre and spare parts getting scarce then fine. Not many will though, which is the important thing.

 

[The Atheist]

We can only hope the Greens get enough seats to force National into a coalition with them and drop their anti-climate policies.

Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?

Not in anyone's wildest dreams is that a possibility.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?

Not in anyone's wildest dreams is that a possibility.

Well unless National get an absolute majority they will have to form a coalition to get anything done.

Election 2023: Greens send warning shot at Labour at campaign launch

The Green Party has kicked off its 2023 election campaign with a warning shot for Labour and any other party that may want its support after October 14.

Co-leader James Shaw told a crowd of about 150 supporters at its campaign launch in Wellington on Sunday morning that no party should "take our support for granted" after the election and the Greens would use "every inch" of the hand it's dealt to fight for its policies.

Greens co-leader James Shaw says relationship with Christopher Luxon is 'good' but 'fundamental' issues with National still apply

"Every time these numbers shift around, we get asked if we would entertain the possibility of going into government with National," he told AM.

"The relationship with Christopher Luxon is good, he did a lot of work when he was in the private sector on climate change so we hope that work continues...

In 2008, they signed a Memorandum of Understanding when National took office, where the two parties worked together on a home insulation scheme, energy efficiency and the regulation of natural health products.

 

[dann]

Continued from post 921. Buried in an article about something completely different:

Before the Hamas attack, there were reports that Saudi Arabia had told the White House it would agree to increase its oil production to help cement a deal, something the Biden White House has sought for two years.
The significance of why Hamas chose to attack Israel now (NBC News, Oct 8, 2023)

This may be what Biden promised his donors, but it is not what he promised his voters. So much for relying on politicians who promise to put an end to or at least slow down global warming in a representative democracy.

Maybe it wasn't a thing, but it's becoming one.

The big problem now is all the people who aren't Americans but want to have the same lifestyle - particularly in India and China. The Chinese government knows this. They have done the sums and know what they have to do - and they are doing it. But of course China has the advantage of not being democratic, so when the government puts its mind to something the people fall in line - unlike the west where governments who push for more action get voted out.

Unlike the west where politicians are elected based on promises to end global warming but usually do the opposite as a favor to their donors and for the sake of their country's 'energy safety' based on the access to oil.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

This may be what Biden promised his donors, but it is not what he promised his voters. So much for relying on politicians who promise to put an end to or at least slow down global warming

Biden Promise Tracker

First off, let's review the 1 'broken' promise :-

- Block new fracking on federal lands, but not ban all fracking.

Joe Biden

"I do not propose banning fracking. I think you have to make sure that fracking is in fact not emitting methane or polluting the well or dealing with what can be small earthquakes in how they're drilling. So, it has to be managed very, very well, number one. Number two, what we have to do is the future rests in renewable energy."


Joe Biden breaks promise to ban new fracking on federal lands

In his first week in office, President Joe Biden put a hold on new oil and gas leases on federal land pending a policy review by the Interior Department. This was the follow-through on a promise that emerged during the campaign.

In a March 15, 2020, debate, Biden seemed to say he would stop all new fracking. But he immediately emphasized that his plan applied only to federal lands and only to new leases.

The moratorium in January 2021 made good, at least temporarily, on Biden's words. Six months later, in June 2021, a federal judge blocked Biden's order, saying lease sales should move forward.

Even this one 'broken' promise wasn't really broken, it was just not practically possible to implement.

Now let's look into the 27 promises kept:-

- Put US on a course to net-zero emissions by 2050.

Joe Biden

"I will make massive, urgent investments at home that put the United States on track to have a clean energy economy with net-zero emissions by 2050."

Historic climate investments put US on track toward net-zero emissions

In mid-July, President Joe Biden's vow to put the country on the path to net-zero emissions by 2050 looked to be beyond reach. Congress held the key to funding the steps needed to stave off the worst effects of climate change, and every legislative effort had stalled.

In a 50-50 Senate, West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin was the most prominent holdout, and without him, nothing could move.

That changed July 27, when Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York announced they had a deal. On Aug. 7, the measure passed in the Senate.

The package they worked out would spend $369 billion over 10 years. It includes $260 billion in clean-energy tax credits to boost investment in solar, wind, hydropower and other forms of renewable energy. For households, it offers consumer rebates to help cover the cost of installing heat pumps and solar panels. Lower- and middle-income households can claim a $4,000 tax credit to buy used electric vehicles. There are over $20 billion to support agriculture practices that release less carbon into the air.

- Establish new fuel economy standards

Joe Biden

"Establish ambitious fuel economy standards that save consumers money and cut air pollution. Biden will negotiate fuel economy standards with workers and their unions, environmentalists, industry, and states that achieve new ambition by integrating the most recent advances in technology."


EPA tightens fuel efficiency rules for cars and light trucks

Soon after he took office, President Joe Biden told the Environmental Protection Agency to set new fuel efficiency standards, and by the end of 2021, it did.

The agency's final rule set higher targets for new cars and light trucks from model year 2023 to 2026...

Under the new rules, they go up between 5% to 10% annually. By model year 2026, car makers' fleet average would be 40 miles per gallon. Overall, fuel efficiency in 2026 would be nearly one-third higher than in 2021.

"The final program represents the most ambitious light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards ever established," the agency said in its Dec. 20, 2021, press release.

- Rejoin the Paris climate agreement

Joe Biden

"I will rejoin the Paris climate agreement on day one of a Biden administration and then convene a summit of the world’s major carbon emitters, rallying nations to raise their ambitions and push progress further and faster."


U.S. formally rejoins Paris Climate Agreement

It's official. The United States is fully part of the Paris Climate Agreement.

On April 21, the administration submitted its plan to the United Nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% from where they were in 2005 by the year 2030.

"We'll get there by investing in American workers, American jobs, American infrastructure, and building a stronger and more resilient economy," President Joe Biden said April 23.

Notice what isn't on that list - a promise to allow oil prices to skyrocket causing rampant inflation. Most assumed that the government would do their best to prevent that from happening. A tiny minority of us hoped it would happen, but not even I expected the government to just sit back and do nothing about it (much though I would have liked that).

Now the thing is, in 2020 nobody was talking about inflation. We were still trying to get Covid-19 under control and most of us had no idea what the long term effect would be. A few of us predicted inflation and rising oil prices as demand increased. Nobody predicted the Ukraine war until a few weeks before it happened.

So Biden never promised to do what you are suggesting he did. Furthermore, everybody knew he was a 'centrist' whose primary action would be to provide stability for the US (and the world) when we desperately needed it. We weren't expecting any radically progressive policies. The realists among us knew that a balance would have to be struck between recovering from the pandemic and fighting global warming. This was Joe Biden, not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Considering what we were expecting from Biden, the list of promises he has kept is quite impressive, and the one 'broken' promise is quite forgivable. Biden managed to incorporate global warming mitigation into his 'Inflation Reduction Act', a stroke of pure genius. Other leaders would have simply abandoned the environment as they put the economy above all.

Running a government effectively is hard - so many conflicting goals and needs that have to be considered. Yes, we need to get off oil. But an economy in tatters won't have the strength to do what's necessary - it will just play into the hands of deniers and opportunists. If Biden didn't do something to stabilize oil prices in the short term the result would be far worse.

There is an old saying that I adhere to all the time - "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Having lofty goals is fine, but you should be willing to accept a less than perfect outcome. Purists, who excoriate the very people who are doing their best to make real progress in a less than perfect world, are not helping.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Unlike the west where politicians are elected based on promises to end global warming but usually do the opposite as a favor to their donors and for the sake of their country's 'energy safety' based on the access to oil.

Yeah, it's easy to make blanket statements without any facts to back them up. Much harder to properly investigate and document the reality of the situation. It took me over an hour to finish the post above refuting your claims about Biden. But I will not shy away from countering distortion with fact. I only wish I had the energy to do more.

Yesterday I watched a video about the Fully Charged Show's "Stop Burning Stuff' campaign to set the record straight on electric cars:-


A great title ("Stop BS" hehe) and a laudable goal. The video itself is not that exciting to watch, as it is a live presentation of the campaign's goals in front of an audience of politicians and the press. However it is interesting to watch in order to appreciate the disinformation we are up against and what's needed to counter it. Just fact-checking the BS is not enough.

The news media and people of all stripes with agendas ranging from monetary interest to simple Ludditism are constantly promulgating this BS without making the slightest effort to be fair or accurate, and their audience laps it up and repeats it. It will take a similar amount of effort just to make people aware of the truth, and then they will to have to decide which 'propaganda' to believe - the BS or the facts.

 

[dann]

Biden Promise Tracker

First off, let's review the 1 'broken' promise :-

- Block new fracking on federal lands, but not ban all fracking.


Even this one 'broken' promise wasn't really broken, it was just not practically possible to implement.

Poor Biden! The little engine that would but just couldn't because it just couldn't be done!
The article you link to is much less ambiguous:

Block new fracking on federal lands, but not ban all fracking
Joe Biden breaks promise to ban new fracking on federal lands | April 22, 2022

Nothing about a 'promise' that wasn't really broken, but merely not practically possible to implement. Promise broken! Deal with it!

Now let's look into the 27 promises kept:-
- Put US on a course to net-zero emissions by 2050.

'Putting on a course' for the next 27 years means nothing whatsoever practically. It means even less when he is simultaneously imploring Saudi Arabia to pump up more oil.

- Establish new fuel economy standards

Which I assume is the reason why he wants the Saudis to pump up more oil: to make oil cheaper!
And as for the new fuel economy standards:

"These standards will cut carbon emissions by 3.1 billion metric tons by 2050, equivalent to two full years of emissions from all transportation in the United States."

Two full years of transportation emissions ... in 27 years! Get used to global warming, guys! It's only going to get worse!

- Rejoin the Paris climate agreement

Which is about as good as all the other by-2050 promises. U.S. presidents have been making promises like that for the past 50 years.

Notice what isn't on that list - a promise to allow oil prices to skyrocket causing rampant inflation. Most assumed that the government would do their best to prevent that from happening. A tiny minority of us hoped it would happen, but not even I expected the government to just sit back and do nothing about it (much though I would have liked that).

Now the thing is, in 2020 nobody was talking about inflation. We were still trying to get Covid-19 under control and most of us had no idea what the long term effect would be. A few of us predicted inflation and rising oil prices as demand increased. Nobody predicted the Ukraine war until a few weeks before it happened.

So Biden never promised to do what you are suggesting he did. Furthermore, everybody knew he was a 'centrist' whose primary action would be to provide stability for the US (and the world) when we desperately needed it. We weren't expecting any radically progressive policies. The realists among us knew that a balance would have to be struck between recovering from the pandemic and fighting global warming. This was Joe Biden, not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Considering what we were expecting from Biden, the list of promises he has kept is quite impressive, and the one 'broken' promise is quite forgivable. Biden managed to incorporate global warming mitigation into his 'Inflation Reduction Act', a stroke of pure genius. Other leaders would have simply abandoned the environment as they put the economy above all.

Running a government effectively is hard - so many conflicting goals and needs that have to be considered. Yes, we need to get off oil. But an economy in tatters won't have the strength to do what's necessary - it will just play into the hands of deniers and opportunists. If Biden didn't do something to stabilize oil prices in the short term the result would be far worse.

There is an old saying that I adhere to all the time - "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Having lofty goals is fine, but you should be willing to accept a less than perfect outcome. Purists, who excoriate the very people who are doing their best to make real progress in a less than perfect world, are not helping.

Yes, stability for the USA is what it's all about, so it's OK that Biden asks the Saudis to produce more oil and allows fracking on pristine lands because anything other than that would have been too radical and have played "into the hands of deniers and opportunists" and he fully lived up to 'our' expectations because we can accept any broken promise as long as a politician makes promises about what will be have been achieved by 2050. And even environmentalists are forgiving because Biden is their guy after all, so what else can the poor guy do? Pandemic, inflation, oil prices, Ukraine. What's a girl to do?!

It's the eternal schism between what "I would have liked," what "a tiny minority of us hoped," and what 'we' are willing to accept as good enough because "running a government effectively is hard." In other words: 'Don't expect politicians to keep their (not very radical!) promises! Pity them instead! Poor, poor Biden!'

But Mr. Biden also promised “no more drilling on federal lands, period. Period, period, period.” Despite that pledge, he has agreed to green-light a drilling project known as Willow on pristine federal land in Alaska and mandated the sale of offshore drilling leases as part of a deal to pass the climate bill.
Climate Groups Back Biden, Despite Broken Promises on Oil Drilling (NYT, June 14, 2023)

Period?! Well, no, not exactly. It can all be negotiated, especially promises made to voters in a representative democracy.

Period.