209
submitted 4 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 54 points 4 days ago

Right on, Joe. Get out all those official acts you can before the country goes to shit.

[-] psvrh@lemmy.ca 48 points 4 days ago

Maybe next time do this stuff during your mandate instead of the last eight weeks?

[-] Nighed@feddit.uk 12 points 4 days ago

I think he has, a lot of this stuff is better spread out though than all at once as it can overheat markets/industries etc.

Better to do that than what trump is planning (or not) though.

trump will just declare in an official act that any laws signed by biden is unconstitutional, void any loans, #whatever-makes-sense

[-] _bcron_@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Trump actually can't do that in this scenario (well he can but it'll royally fuck him over) which is kind of funny.

If it was in the budget and money was handed out at intervals via appropriation he could just turn the faucet off, but since it's a loan and the principal disbursed to the debtor, it falls into contract law, which is very pro-contract with probably a couple centuries of precedent.

Boiled down, only way a creditor can force a debtor to pay the remaining principal in full outside the terms of the contract is if they put an Acceleration Clause in the contract. Usually those are thrown into loans in order to recover any collateral in the event the debtor does not fulfill the terms of the contract. IE: someone quits making car payments for enough time, repo guy shows up, they auction car and apply it to the balance and demand the rest due immediately.

But acceleration clauses in practically every contract ever drafted, they're contingent on the debtor's performance in upholding the terms of the contract, so they almost always come into play if and only if the debtor quits performing their duties.

So without that, or if the acceleration clause isn't applicable, debtor almost always has the right but not the obligation to pay early, creditor has no right to do the same, and creditor's only real way to get out of the loan is to sell the rights to the debt (the servicing) to someone else, or to issue a COD (cancellation of debt). Cancellation is as it sounds, they just tear up the contract and let the debtor walk away (edit: I should note that the unfulfilled obligation is treated as taxable income for the debtor, like a gift of sorts, so they gotta pay tax on it and then walk away, but slightly pedantic). Debtor keeps whatever you gave them, debtor no longer has a contractual obligation to pay you back. It's almost always used alongside negotiation, for example bankruptcy, they might say "if you give us this much money we'll eat the rest of the loss", kinda compel someone to pay that creditor first and give the creditor some way to try to wring out a couple bucks that would otherwise be a pain in the ass to collect.

So basically Trump's only real option is to sell the debt or just do some big loan forgiveness thing lol

[-] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago
[-] _bcron_@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I think the sad thing is that if Trump has any hard skills, it's probably reading fine print in contracts to find gaps or flimsy ambiguous wording, so he'll probably just get worked up over the fact that Biden won this battle and go be dumb elsewhere.

It would be funny if he was mega dumb and just cancelled it all but he basically carved out a name for himself by being a weasel so that's unlikely.

Props on Biden for the one finger salute tho lol

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

I disagree that Trump can read. He famously needed all communications reduced to bullet pointed lists.

this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
209 points (99.1% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5289 readers
673 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS