225

You may have noticed that in recent weeks, the Biden administration has been rolling out a hell of a lot of new regulations. Earlier this month it was big student loan reforms and a massive improvement in how public lands are managed, then this week we had better pay and working conditions for working Americans, minimum staffing ratios for nursing homes, and even improved service on airlines.

That’s not only because it’s an election year, though Joe & Kamala certainly do like to point out that where the Other Guy rages (and wants to raise inflation!) they’ve been busy making Americans’ lives better. But the bigger reason is that the administration wants to get new rules finalized prior to May, to keep them from being tossed out in the next Congress via the Congressional Review Act, which Donald Trump and his cronies used to reverse a bunch of Barack Obama’s environmental regulations.

. . . The requirement that coal plants find a way to eliminate 90 percent of their emissions by 2032 effectively accelerates the end of coal for power generation, which was inevitable anyway. Roughly 70 percent of US coal plants have already closed, and last year, coal generated only 16 percent of electric power, a new record low. In addition to the emissions rule, three other final rules also impose strict new limits on mercury, coal ash, and pollution of wastewater, to put an end to the environmental degradation caused by coal.

. . . The other option, obviously, would be for utilities to meet coming demand with renewables, as administration officials pointed out when previewing the new rule. Thanks to the IRA’s hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives, carbon-free power generation, including battery storage, already beats the cost of building new gas plants. Going forward, the administration is confident renewables will be the far more cost-effective and reliable way to meet increasing demand by 2032, when the emissions limits fully kick in.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 110 points 4 months ago

This is so much better than all the posts shaming voters for not wanting to vote for Biden.

Biden is a far cry from the President that I want, but it's ignorant to claim he hasn't been a hell of a lot better than Trump, or even Obama and Clinton. After 50+ years of really shitty Presidents and an even worse Congress, Biden is arguably the best we've had. It's entirely possible to promote Biden with honest accounting without trying to silence the voices saying the Democrats must do better.

That said, of the Democrats try to force Harris on us without an actual primary in 2024, then it's time to repeat the 1968 national convention. Our FPTP system means that primaries are effectively the only real democracy we get, and the way they are run by the DNC (and RNC) is abysmal.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 35 points 4 months ago

I mean he has been quite a bit better than any president I have experienced in office but it is sad that the bar is so low.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

This is the correct response. He's been world's better than expected on many things. But between those expectations and Republicans that bar was ridiculously low.

There are many things I wish biden and Democrats would do. But complaint wise Biden's kid gloves and undeservedly diplomatic tone with Israel is the biggest. Though completely expected given the century of propaganda and enabling of such a dangerous regime over there. It doesn't all fall on biden. But he still wrong for his part.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 1 points 4 months ago

oh yeah but when I say the bar is ridiculously low I mean like taking into account all the presidents I have had experience with. Im like old and to have biden be the best to me is sorta sad. previously I felt the same way with obama and the current pope. I feel like there should be a sign saying you must be at least this competent to be president with their picture and most of the presidents would then be disqualified. Like this is the crappiest you can be to hold the office. instead (at least for me) they are the best. Im not even comparing to trump now who is so opposite end of the spectrum and did the monumental achievement of making bush junior not seem so bad (yes yes. I know thats debatable as his random crazy sellout stupid is hard to measure against calculating power for us by which im talking channey of course).

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

without trying to silence the voices saying the Democrats must do better

I genuinely don't understand where this comes from. I haven't seen a single serious person argue that we shouldn't criticize the Biden administration or the Democrats. What does get pushback is the idea that we shouldn't vote for them in November. When someone is suggesting the solution to the very real issues the Democratic Party has is to enable the GOP and give them more power they absolutely should get chastised.

Agreed on everything else though. If everyone who was upset about Biden actually got involved and voted in the primaries it would be much easier to get representation that actually serves our needs. The DNC only has so much control.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 9 points 4 months ago

There are several places it comes from.

First, there has been a meme campaign about Biden being better than Trump that seems to go out of it's way to "call out" those of us who are fed up with the behavior of the Democratic establishment (DE). They imply we are fools who don't comprehend how bad Trump is. The people those memes are directed at don't really exist. They are a myth put out by the DE to sideline progressives. There has also been a recent wave of right wing bots that perpetuate the myth to further drive the wedge between progressives and the DE. Those bots aren't going to be convinced, and progressives don't need to be.

The second is that it is nearly impossible to criticize the DE without getting lectured about how much worse Trump is. Being a tiny bit better than fascist is apparently enough for Democrats privileged enough to not suffer under even Democratic policies. I think this video shows a great example. I try to always mention that Republicans are worse when criticizing Democrats, but that rarely makes a difference.

The third place is from old timers like me who have watched Democrats coddle fascism ever since Reagan. What we are living through now didn't start with Trump, and it wasn't just the fault of Republicans. Many of us have been fighting Democratic mediocrity since before most Americans ever heard of Bernie Sanders. The DE is routinely snide and dismissive of the left, even as they fail to grasp the Republican threat. They say the country wants centrists, but run to the left with their rhetoric before every election. In that context, both of the previously mentioned items tend to strike a nerve.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

The second is that it is nearly impossible to criticize the DE without getting lectured about how much worse Trump is.

Maybe if it was actually believable, but there's so much propaganda now that unless you repeatedly and proactively affirm that people should vote for Biden, I'll assume that any criticism is just more right wing attempts at voter suppression.

If Biden wins the election, then we can have a lot more open criticism of Democratic policies because the bots, trolls, and agents provacateur will go away.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago

Has it occurred to you that making that assumption could also result in suppressed voter enthusiasm? Put yourself in the head of a genuine lefty who's fed up with Democratic shenanigans. What messaging might keep you in the fold, and what will drive you away?

Something else to keep in mind is that it's not just voting that we're talking about. Democrats need volunteers, donations, and word of mouth. Broad enthusiasm is critical for all of that. Who wants to volunteer for a movement that denies them a voice?

For decades now, every election has been called the most critical of our lives, and sadly it's been pretty consistently true. We have elections every two years. Criticism in the first year is called unfair because they just took office. Criticism on the second year is always called disloyalty in a critical election year. Disinformation is only going to be getting worse, so waiting for that to end is not viable.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 months ago

While I am glad for actions, any actions, towards reducing fossil fuel emissions in the US, I really which they weren't coupled with record high oil production and export.

The whole robbing Peter to pay Paul situation and all.

[-] DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This new policy will definitely get overturned by the Supreme Court. As such, it is a stupid election-year gimmick.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
225 points (94.8% liked)

politics

18894 readers
4175 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS