this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
391 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19062 readers
3711 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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

On the last Saturday before Donald Trump took office, in January 2017, I watched the controlled chaos of a hackathon unfold in a library at the University of Pennsylvania. Volunteer archivists, librarians, and computer scientists were trawling government websites, looking for data sets about climate change to duplicate for safekeeping. Groups like this were meeting across the country. Flowcharts on whiteboards laid out this particular room’s priorities: copy decades of ice-core statistics from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; scrape the Environmental Protection Agency’s entire library of local air-monitoring results from the previous four years; find a way to preserve a zoomable map of the factories and power plants emitting the most greenhouse gases.

The fear was that the incoming administration would pull information like this from public view—and within a week, it did. By noon on Inauguration Day, the Trump administration had scrubbed mentions of climate change from the White House website. By May, officials had taken down the EPA’s page laying out climate science for the general public, as well as 108 pages associated with the Clean Power Plan, the landmark Obama policy meant to curb emissions from power plants—months before the Trump administration tried to repeal the policy altogether.

The administration’s goal was to bury the issue of climate change. Nothing was done to address it; the very mention of it was knocked from the national agenda—and, by extension, the international agenda. If Trump returns to office, he will surely double down on this strategy.

Non-paywall link

top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] akilou@sh.itjust.works 53 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's not "ignore it", it's actively make it worse. Look at all of his coal bullshit. There's no economic reason to continue supporting coal

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 23 points 9 months ago

Came here to say this. He actively sold off public lands that were held in reserve for the future - it was OURS, now it just managed to line HIS pockets. Remind me again btw why I am supposed to be afraid of "socialism", but capitalism = perfection? :-(

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 33 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I have no patience with people who “just cant find it in their heart to support Biden again”. There is too fucking much at stake to hold Biden to these impossible standards.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 7 points 9 months ago

Exactly. They don’t seem to understand that the willful act of cutting of their own noses- spites every face in America.

But it’s never their fault.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 months ago

especially when biden is one of the most progressive presidents in modern history

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 22 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Tell this to the “gEnOciDe jOe” bros. I’ll bet they still won’t lift a finger come November.

But remember, it won’t be their fault.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

knowing how much steve bannon made has way up in wow chat, the likelihood that all those "leftists" screaming that are actually 45 year old white male conservatives.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

I wouldn’t doubt it for a second. And in the event they’re not- then they’re mindless drones doing the work of 45 year old white male conservatives.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

You know Joe pumped more oil and signed more land off for drilling than trump did, right? The climate cannot survive another term of America.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that's usually the response I get from angy Americans when they realize no matter who they elect, next year there will be record oil production.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If only worthlessly whining about it online to a bunch of strangers would fix the world’s problems, people like you would lock up that Nobel Prize indefinitely.

Oh well, I guess the rest of us will have to keep doing the shit you don’t like until the day comes where everything is perfect- so that you can take credit for all the hard work.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry that you're angry that I said factual statements about the administration. You're right, everyone shut up about the genocide and climate apocalypse!

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Who’s angry? And what something factual you said? I must have missed that part.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You seem angry. If you're not then you're just a miserable person to communicate with.

This is obviously what I'm referring to.

You're angry at the wrong people. If you're not angry about this, then you should be.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, I’m not angry about that. What I’m angry about is people like you willing to let Trump destroy America because of your stubbornness.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So you're okay with Biden destroying the planet, but get angry at the thought of trump destroying your country? Talk about American exceptionalism 🤮.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I generally don’t subscribe to sensationalism. Your droning on about your one little issue isn’t enough to move the needle when doing so sacrificing Ed the democracy of the country I live in and that contains all of my loved ones.

So yeah. I’m okay with it. Entirely okay with it. Because its Also mostly bullshit.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hahahaha, good luck with that.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Appreciate that. Good luck to you on finishing grade school.

[–] chknbwl@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

This dude, in the same breath as claiming to be a dictator "on day one", said his main priority is to drill, baby, drill. He, along with all of his voters, have openly opted to make the climate crisis worse. Simply put, republicans are Eco-terrorists. The world, not just the US, cannot afford to have Republicans in charge anymore.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Trump's approach is to pour gasoline into the dumpster fire. Ignoring it is almost everyone else's approach.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah, the climate can’t afford another full 365 days of our current carbon output. Like, in reality, it can’t do one more day. It couldn’t have done about the last five decades. But it’s doing it because we won’t stop. It’s likely already too late. But the world does have insane healing properties. Maybe if we stopped, it could heal itself.

But this “slow down a little by 2050” bullshit is just poppycock.

#GuysCanWeLikeChillOutABitOnTheClimate

[–] Philo@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago

The presidency can't afford another Trump presidency.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It couldnt afford the first one

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Too bad do many American voters also ignore it.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago

his approach isn't to ignore it; it's to actively make it worse

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Because roughly 60% of likely voters think climate change is a "false religion" that has nothing to do with the climate.

Think about that. Why would a republican candidate that is only about themselves ever do anything about climate change? They poll better when they do the opposite.

We have to be careful here, because we're getting dangerously close to denial about the popularity of climate change denial. We're not winning, and even though it's an existential crisis, "Well you'll see I'm right when the world is on fire" actually makes people LESS likely to support efforts to fight climate change. Think about that too.