More than just climate. Huge infrastructure acts that are helping rebuild our our states. Helping us add stuff like protected bike lanes, too. Capping prescription costs, which is huge.
Massive investments in our economy and R&D, something we have been sorely lacking.
Some queer rights and even some small but humanizing stuff, like letting bi and gay men donate blood like the rest of humanity, and making the bar safer for everyone.
In addition to all the other stuff, like stopping the pandemic, pulling the economy out of a nosedive under Trump, reversing schedule F (think Trump's version of Order 66) for federal employees who actually keep the lights on and the country going between multiple presidents, forgiving tons of student loans, and curtailing the damage from abortion being revoked where he can.
Not to mention his accomplishments on background checks for guns, pardoning federal Marijuana offenses, and slapping the dogshit out of Russia via our friends and allies. ❤️
Edit: Damn, there's actually a list of accomplishments. He's done a lot of good shit even if he's kind of a bad public speaker.
Well the US is one of the biggest importers of things by ship. Are we doing anything about the millions of tons of bunker oil being burned every hour of every day?
No?
Then it isn't good enough. Shipping is stage 1 fix it right now kinda shit and we are doing NOTHING about it
Are we still rapidly backsliding on climate issues? Then don't wonder why "no one knows about how much Biden is helping the issue." I, like I'd imagine most people, have little interest in hearing about his "wins," be they climate, economic, etc, if all they amount to is "I helped make a worsening problem worsen slower!" That's not news, that's just a reminder of how pathetic the better of two evils is. If he actually does something substantial enough to improve even one of the many giant problems the country/world currently faces, everyone will know about it because it will visibly change the communities that we live in, and directly affect our day-to-day lives. The time for incremental change was the 20th century; we've kicked the can down the road for so long it landed in "go big or go home" territory.
To be clear, I'm going to vote Biden in November because the alternatives are all so much worse, but damn, that's not something to celebrate.
Every climate scientist crunching the numbers right now is freaking out behind semi-closed doors because they're worried that if the media starts running with the story that "thanks to a series of feedback loops the climate may already be fucked beyond hope of ever returning to normal, and at this point the best we can do is try to minimize the damage but even that will require completely upending the status quo," everyone will give up on climate/environmental action entirely, so the public instead is fed an alternating diet of toned-down warnings and positive news about microscopic improvements to maintain a general sense of hope.
If that's "moving in the right direction," we deserve our demise.
The point where things stop getting worse is the point where we've fully succeeded in getting off fossil fuels, ended deforestation, and phased out use of a few industrial gases and refrigerants. That's something like the end stage of action, not the messy middle where we are now. If we succeed, we'll get there in about 25 years.
Even if we fully stopped emitting net CO2 today, the climate will continue warming in 25 years. All the methane and CO2 we've already emitted will continue to warm the climate.
Probaly as one right dont fix 12 wrongs. And people dont want to hear about it, as if you look closely its like pissing in the ocean
(It does not add much)
We cannot allow perfect to be the enemy of good. Governments move slowly, especially the US, so moving the needle a little bit this year will let us move it a little more next year. Gradually, funding environmental progress becomes more and more normal, and greater and greater actions to deal with climate change become acceptable. All great accomplishments started with a proverbial "pissing in the ocean" if you look back far enough in their development.
Let's also be clear that the only alternative to Biden that exists, for the 2024 US election, under the current US voting system, would be far worse than Biden in every environmental category. It's important to push back on the bad, but it's even more important to promote the good work done by his administration, no matter how small of a good we think it is in the moment. If all we do is gripe about the bad, we're helping every wealthy oligarch that wants us to think of governments as impotent and useless while they burn the planet to the ground.
I totally agree, this is just my thoughts on why.
I vibe on the sunny side of the pond, but we are terrified to what donald can do to foreign policies- we are not yet prepared to handle our security our selves
Sure he's got climate wins, but some of the wins are questionable, like giant hydrogen hubs. Hydrogen sounds great on the surface, but the more you dig into it, the more issues crop up. Some of these hubs will end up producing hydrogen by burning fossil fuels, and that isn't a win at all. And speaking of not winning, we are producing more oil and natural gas than ever before. That's why we aren't excited about his "Climate Wins", they are offset if not overcome by losses.
Having said that, regarding the Climate, pollution, and everything related, Trump is the worst choice. He's already promised Carte Blanche to oil execs if they donate to his campaign. (Not in those words of course, simpler, more incoherent ones.)
I think voters know and don't care because he's supporting a genocide. Its the elephant in the room and there is just no amount of whataboutism that will overcome it. The Venn-diagram of people for whom climate (or any progressive issue really) is a priority, but also not mindlessly slaughtering a people, is basically a circle.
No good thing that Biden has ever done matters so long as he's complicity supporting the genocide of the Palestinian people.
Joe's road to winning this election is very simple. Cut off aid to Israel and put 100% of the blame on Bibi. Make him your fall guy and then about-face on this issue and pressure the Israeli government into calling snap elections.
Boom. 5 days later and Biden will be polling at 55% and he can actually take advantage all of the "great things" he's done, which currently stand irrelevant because of the 9000 lb gorilla in the room which is a functionally pro-genocide stance. A worthless pier; air drops; sternly worded letters: they are irrelevant when the President has the tools to have stopped this from day 0 and he continually refuses to use them. This war is hurting the Israeli and Jewish people. Jews are less safe globally then ever before explicitly because of how Israel has engaged in this conflict.
The question at this point is who does the president work for? Does he work for the American people or the Israeli government?
This problem predates October 7, and we just had a candidate lose a primary in part because he sounded too much like he was supporting Hamas. So it's not that.
Again, Biden's position on Israel is central to this. Democrats have been consistently more interested in eradicating progressives from their party than resisting conservatives. If Biden had the same stance as Bowman on Israel (you know, the moral one to have), Bowman wins that primary.
Its over for the Democrats. They've lost this election and lost the future of the party to I don't know what. They've at least one entire generation of voters on this issue, and maybe as much as 40-60% of Z and millennials. They are dead as a party at this point and there is no point arguing about them because they'll never hold power again.
And its because of this issue. Its because of Gaza. Its because they are not interested in the priorities of their base, and have been telling us exactly this since the year 2000. We should listen to them.
Humans have limited bandwidth for keeping active "issues" in their brains. We prioritize somethings over others. There has been plenty of press on Biden's climate "wins". But they are irrelevant because he's supporting a genocide.
Say a human can have maybe 5 priorities at a given moment. Anything that drops out of those five priorities means we don't "know" about it (its not at the front of our mind).
For likely Biden independents it goes:
1: Genocide in Gaza
2: Stopping Trump
3: The economy
4: The rise of christian fascism (nationally & globally)
5: The rise of authoritarianism
Climate can't get to the top of the heap because there are other issues, more prescient, are way way way more relevant in near-time. And this has always been the issue with Climate as politics. The costs to doing anything (with time as the x-axis) are always high (on the left side of the x axis, near time) while the benefits are low (in near time). The benefits are all extremely delayed. Humans didn't evolved to deal with this kind of shit. Historically when a population of humans fucked up their environment beyond the point we could survive (its happened a bunch of times), those humans just fucking die and whatever left of their diaspora get picked up by other human populations. We evolved to rank and prioritize issues for survival now, a little bit for 5 years from now, and basically not at all for 20 years from now. And practically 0 for issues 100 years from now.
So its not that people don't know about these W's; its just that they don't care. They can't. They have other shit they need to care about because its blowing up in their faces right now.
'Dangerous Precedent': Record AIPAC Spending Helps George Latimer Defeat Jamaal Bowman
"Jamaal and our movement were such a threat to right-wing power, to GOP megadonors, and to AIPAC's influence in Congress that they had to spend $15 million to defeat us," said one progressive organizer.
So AIPAC and Dems did this, not "because he sounded too much like he was supporting Hamas" what ever the fuck that BS is.
single issue voters have always been a scourge to democracy. Whether they be "pro-life" and happily accept anything the candidate dumps out, as long as they control women's health, or anti-genocide and reject everything, even to the point of burning down their own country.
Very few people are actually "pro-genocide", but people need to balance everything.
it's still: genocide+lots of good stuff vs genocide+lots of bad stuff.
it's not a matter of whataboutism, because both sides are pro-genocide.
If genocide is all that matters, then you're a good person morally, but a bad American. Genocide SHOULD and DOES matter. But the topic shouldn't be your only defining political characteristic.
Palestine can't live forever if the middle east is too hot and dry to support human life. If what this article says about Biden's climate wins is true, then he will have done more for Palestine than any previous POTUS. Which is still next to fuck all, but I would consider it a bigger deal than his participation in the current genocide. We are talking about genocide of one human ethnicity versus genocide of all human ethnicities including the first one. There's no contest. And yeah, it would be very easy for Biden to genocide zero ethnicities, but I'm not Biden so I don't get to make that choice. I only get to choose Biden or Trump.
What you just communicated, is one of the most psychologically damaged things I've ever seen communicated on social media.
We are talking about genocide of one human ethnicity versus genocide of all human ethnicities including the first one
What in the chicken fried fuck are you talking about.
it would be very easy for Biden to genocide zero ethnicities, but I’m not Biden so I don’t get to make that choice. I only get to choose Biden or Trump.
You are just pro-genocide dude. You are parroting what the Nazis parroted in their genocide of the Jews. That its good for them. That its better this way. You've lost your god damned mind and need to seek real professional help.
There is a line where something ceases to be a difference in politics and becomes a person advocating for and justifying the eradication of a people.
That's you.
Your on the other side of that line.
Its no longer a difference of politics but a question of if you regard other humans as humans or not. and your on the wrong side of that answer. And like with the "paradox of tolerance", if you aren't willing to accept the humanity of other people being inherently valuable, no one should be obligated to treat yours as much. In other words, if you can't accept the humanity of another people and this genocide is "justified" to you, no one is obligated to respect you as a human, because you've betrayed that social contract.
Yup, people who argue that Biden shouldn't be criticised for his genocide because "Trump is worse" are just doing genocide denial.
Even if you take the stance that he has to beat Trump to prevent an even worse climate disaster, his genocide might stop him beating Trump. He is choosing genocide and supporting fascism overseas rather than beating fascism at home.
People go on about how much we need to beat Trump but I'm pretty convinced that Biden and the DNC don't really want to beat Trump.
That's also why threatening to not vote Biden is useless - he won't care. Vote for him and force him to spend another 4 years disappointing and radicalising his own base against the US empire.
Voters who believe climate change is a hoax so trying to claim victory here might not give returns, so it's better to do it quietly
Voters who believe climate change is real are going to be looking at this as not enough action given what the IPCC is saying
So this spate of legislation is tepid for both sides, so it doesn't really "make" news. As far as Fox & other right wing media, going into the detail of climate change just hurts their message because no one can look at detail and not immediately realise that there's "something to this climate change mumbo jumbo", so covering this is actually toxic for them. They are better off sticking to the top-level "it's a hoax they want to kill your babies" or whatever.
when the anti-climate garbage is freely available and shouted everywhere and the pro-climate information is buried by corporate media or hidden behind a paywall …
Because a lot of the coverage is only done by news sources that you pay for. I'm actually not sharing a LOT because it's in publications that don't gift link.
