Joe Biden Has Another Big F*cking Deal For Climate, Again
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.
You can't actually believe that. Biden refused to publically criticize Israel until February, four months into the genocide, when he said Israel's actions were "over the top." And even then, the flow of weapons has yet to even slow. Even Ronald Reagan withheld weapons from Israel when they got out of line.
The President coming out to criticize a close ally is never going to be the first step in that direction. That's not how foreign policy works.
Incorrect. Weapons shipments were delayed and are still being delayed. The deals went forward, but delays were introduced as some of the very first signals to Israel.
Exactly why I said "since Reagan". Biden has at least threatened to do so, which is something that hasn't happened since Reagan.
My position isn't that the Biden administration has done everything right, but that the narrative where they have done nothing but defend Israel is bunk. The general strategy of slowly turning up the heat is the best way to maximize US influence by my estimation, but I think the dial has been turned way too slowly.
Foreign policy is way more complicated than most people think. There is an entire region that has to be considered over decades, not just the issue catching people's attention at the moment. As bad as things are in Gaza, they could be worse, and they could be far more widespread. If Israel goes to war with any of their rivals, all pretense of restraint in Gaza will end immediately.
Got a source for that?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-delays-sale-assault-rifles-israel-over-settler-violence-sources-2023-12-13/
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/13/us-israel-rifle-sale-delay-west-bank-violence
https://abcnews.go.com/International/senior-israeli-official-us-slow-walking-aid-us-disputes/story?id=108107192
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-discussing-slowing-weaponry-deliveries-israel-pre-rcna136035
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4434545-biden-administration-looking-to-slow-weapon-sales-to-israel-in-effort-to-scale-back-military-assault-report/
Thank you.
First two links are exclusively about rifles, not the bombs and shells being used on families in Gaza. The third article says:
Your last two articles say that three months ago the administration was considering thinking about exploring the possibility of debating the merits of slowing weapon deliveries.
It's not pragmatic to twiddle your thumbs while your weapons are used to commit atrocities. It's evil.
The false statement I was correcting was about "weapons". You never mentioned "bombs and shells". Here is the thing about bombs and shells. Israel has plenty of dumb bombs and shells, and they don't need the US to get more. What they get from the US are precision weapons, which means fewer bombs are required to hit a target. Whatever you think of Israeli tactics (and we probably agree completely) it's better for them to have the precision weapons.
The whole point of slow rolling weapons shipments is to be able to send a signal but maintain official deniability. Actually denying it is just maintaining that veneer.
I stated my position clearly so that it wouldn't be misconstrued, but you went and did it anyways. I support the general strategy of ramping up pressure, but I think it has been done far too slowly. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the powerful Israel lobby, but we passed the point where that should matter a long time ago.
And then sent them anyways in violation of the Leahy Law. You forgot that part.