You're viewing a single thread.
As he campaigned for president in 2020, Joe Biden made a bold promise at a New Hampshire town hall, adding repetition for emphasis: “No more drilling on federal lands. Period. Period. Period. Period.” […] The Biden administration has now outpaced the Trump administration in approving permits for drilling on public lands, and the United States is producing more oil than any country ever has. […] The reality is the United States is already dominant. The country is expected to produce 13.2 million barrels of oil per day on average this year — millions of barrels more than Saudi Arabia or Russia. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/08/16/biden-oil-drilling-production/
They're not the same, but if you look at the big picture, like a livable vs an unlivable biosphere, then the slightly-lesser evil is still omnicidally evil (and helping with a genocide).
Call me selfish, but I'm a lot more concerned when it comes to this election about the potential genocides of queer and brown people that will happen if Trump is elected. Since, you know, they're basically saying that will happen.
But there is this bizarre idea that some people have that adding two genocides on top of the existing genocides (because Trump isn't going to do shit about the one Russia is doing in Ukraine either) doesn't matter.
I want to keep queer people (including my own daughter) out of conversion camps and brown people out of concentration camps.
That's a pretty big fucking picture.
What about keeping palestinians out of concentration camps? Small price for your own worries?
I have been working for Jewish Voice for Peace to work to stop this genocide since it began.
What have you done?
I wish I had your privilege of only having to worry about two things; the environment and Palestine.
I'm one of those folks who has to deal with the police, doctors, schools, roads, and the possibility of a fascist takeover of the government by someone who has been praising Hitler for years.
I'm sorry if I've offended your high morals.
I'm not offended - I understand most people have very different priorities. I personally think that preventing a mass extinction event is more important than police, doctors, schools, roads (for cars), and fascism; because I happen to think that a catastrophic climate cascade means nothing else matters. Healthcare is nice, but doctors will all be dead when the biosphere becomes unlivable.
I don't stand with the genocidal Hamas voters, nor with the genocidal Israeli voters.
And that is exactly what the reply means by privilege. It is a luxury to be able to think that far ahead.
It turns out, when you're at risk of being dead in a week, a month, or a year, you tend not to care about whether humanity will be around in 20 years.
So having the ability to focus on the long term is a privilege that the vulnerable do not have.
Of course, these things are not mutually exclusive. But when you have two parties that both suck at climate care, but only one of them is trying to incarcerate or kill LGBTQA+ folks, for example, and your focus is on things like "don't vote for anyone or you're supporting fascism and climate destruction" it reeks of privilege and a disregard for the immediate welfare of your neighbors.
EDIT: To put it another way - if the cost of humanity's survival is sacrificing our LGBTQA+ neighbors, perhaps humanity is not worth saving.
So it's okay to help yourself in the short term, and by doing so help make the biosphere unlivable?
The fact that you interpret fear of persecution and resistance to authoritarianism as a selfish act tells me everything I need to know about how you view the world. And I choose not to engage in this conversation with you. 👋
I don't think fear of persecution and resistance to authoritarianism is selfish. I think some things are vastly worse than others, e.g. wiping out more than 50% of genera and more than 70% of species, and making the biosphere unlivable for most creatures larger than mice - is incredibly selfish; and being complicit in genocide is a line some people won't cross no matter if it may benefit them personally in the short term. I understand most people have very different priorities, and care more about their own short-term goals even if those goals make them complicit in omnicide.
And your ability to be concerned about such things is your privilege
It is obvious that you are generally comfortable with little risk to your daily life riding on this election
Talk to me again when you're sacrificing your own immediate safety instead of the immediate safety of others to uphold your high-minded values
You're contributing to making the biosphere unlivable. You're using electronics to communicate on Lemmy. That means you've contributed a huge amount of CO2 in all kinds of ways- a significant amount was expended just to construct whatever device you're using.
So you're going to stop using electronics and the internet, right? Otherwise you're just helping yourself in the short term, something you are implying you do not want people to do.
I'm not sure why you think that changes what I said. You're making a contribution to making the biosphere unlivable by using that electronic device you're using in multiple ways. What other people do or don't do does not absolve your own culpability.
You just don't want to live without the luxury of the internet, so you're evading.
Some things are sustainable, others are not - by orders of magnitude. Some of the former are not sustainable when done by billions of people.
And now you're just trying to weasel out of the thing you are pointing fingers at others for.
This was you earlier:
So it’s okay to help yourself in the short term, and by doing so help make the biosphere unlivable?
That is exactly what you are doing right now. You just think it's okay for you to do what you criticize others for in order to have your own luxuries.
Some things are sustainable, others are not - by orders of magnitude.
Growing a tree, and then cutting it down to boil water is sustainable.
Producing more oil than any country ever has, is absolutely not sustainable.
Accessing the internet using an open source OS on hardware other people threw away, is sustainable, even when following the categorical imperative where the other 8 billion people also do it.
"In June 2021, a federal judge struck down Biden’s pause on oil and gas leasing on federal lands, delivering a win to Republican-led states that had challenged the policy."
Harris literally bragged about increasing domestic gas production to an all time high. The "hands-are-tied" bit is bullshit.
You suspiciously left out how she explained that they have invested a trillion dollars towards clean energy. Aso, the increase domestic gas production she “bragged” about is to counter our need to go outside of our own, and pay out the ass for it.
It’s amazing how you people can twist shit into a narrative that suits your agenda, but when light is cast on the reality of it-
You have nothing.
Oh I don't think there was anything suspicious about it. It was very intentional.
Of course it was intentional. They’re as bad faith as it gets. They’re here to interfere with an election. Check their comment history though, they are having their ass handed to them left and right. It’s awesome!
Incredible. The only one, "twisting shit into a narrative that suits your agenda" is you trying to paint all-time high gas production as a win, somehow. But whether or not it's a win is irrelevant to the point being discussed, as is the "trillion dollar investment" that I "suspiciously" left out.
Maybe you need a refresher on the conversation so far. One person said that Biden promised to reduced drilling, then failed to keep that promise. Then someone else incorrectly said that they wanted to reduce drilling, but couldn't because of the courts. So I presented a clip of Harris bragging about increasing gas production as an accomplishment of the administration. Now, you seem to have completely lost the plot, ignoring both the claim that they wanted to reduce gas production but were stopped, and the fact that Biden promised to reduce it in the first place, and are suddenly taking a completely different tact.
Why don't you take issue with the person claiming that they wanted to reduce it, but couldn't? They're spreading misinformation to deny one of the Biden administrations "accomplishments," and claiming that he was trying to do a bad thing, are they not?
Of course, it's plain why you don't do that, because facts don't matter at all to you, it's all about partisan loyalty. If one person says that Biden wanted to do a good thing by cutting gas production, but couldn't, you're fine with that, because they're loyal to your team. If someone else says that they increased gas production, which is a good thing, you're fine with that too, because they're also on your team. The fact that those two positions are completely contradictory doesn't seem to phase you at all.
Some of us believe in a single, observable reality, as opposed to holding every position that supports your agenda as simultaneously true in direct contradiction of reason and evidence.
Incredible.
You are, indeed. I am happy that you have figured that much out 🫶
"I know you are but what am I?"
Why are liberals so bad at quips?
Yawn… oh! Is your manifesto over? Good.
So anyway…. As I was saying, you cherry-pick bullshit narratives to make it sound like you have a clue, but in the end- all you end up doing is exhausting people that have the energy to look up the bullshit you spew. Wait… was I even saying that? Hmm… well, that’s what I’m saying now. But guess what? I am not one of those people that have that kind energy, but it sure looks like others do.
Let’s read along!
Oh, and real quick… don’t think I didn’t notice how you took everything I said out of context, rewrote it, and spit it back as a bullshit narrative- but that’s okay because thats just what people have come to expect from you.
Yawn… oh! Is your manifesto over? Good.
Least anti-intellectual liberal.
[ten paragraph treatise on shit that had little relevance to the point]
Least smug pseudo-intellectual socialist.
ten
If you're having trouble with numbers, try using your fingers. Hint: you only need one hand.
If you’re having trouble understanding what an exaggeration is- I’d suggest you read your own rhetoric for a quick refresher.
Maybe you’ll understand how the rest of us feel having to read that nonsense.
Myabe you need a refresher on the conversation so far. The initial point was increase in drilling on federal lands and not overall gas production for the country. You are quite a bit cherry picking and mixing apples with oranges in this conversation.
As was already mentioned in the top level comment, the Biden administration outpaced Trump on drilling permits on federal land.
Also, strange that you're defending someone who thinks increasing drilling is a good thing, care to explain that?
Well its nice we are getting back to the initial subject but drilling is permitted on the lands and that predates the administration. It has been democratic administrations that have restricted drilling in large swatches and republican that have lifted those restrictions. Once its allowed the permits are just about who does it and they can delay somewhat but not disallow them if they do everything according to the law.
The only person who deviated from the initial subject was Rhoeri, who appears to be on your side despite the two of you believing directly contradictory things. You could've responded to my first comment if you weren't interested in that deviation.
So to make sure I understand your position, you're saying that Harris was lying when she said "we have also increased gas production to historic levels," because her administration had nothing to do with it, and in fact opposed it, correct? Before investigating further, I want to clearly establish what your position is, and whether you are willing to acknowledge facts even when they are inconvenient for your team. If you're putting party before truth, then there's no point in discussing anything.
I don't believe its a lie but it is a misrepresentation. She could be pointing out their policies did not result in less production despite republican fear mongering and like many things they can't just stop it across the board. At best they can set policy to incentivize clean energy (like the ombudsman bill) or disincentivize fossil fuel production by increased regulation or taxation. But yes they did not really have any direct influence on how much gas companies produced domestically outside of that so it was a misleading brag.
Alright, so if Kamala "misleadingly bragged" about doing the opposite of what you say her position is, then at that point it seems like you're suggesting that she's keeping her real positions secret. I would be much more inclined to suspect a politician of being less environmentally friendly in practice than they are while campaigning, because that's where the money is. I have to say I'm pretty incredulous to the idea that Kamala is secretly to the left of what she claims, as it sounds like cope.
But it is true that Biden was blocked by courts from preventing drilling on public lands. But, as usual with these "hands are tied" sorts of claims, there's more he could've done, and the president is not nearly as powerless as his supporters make him out to be. If Biden declared a national climate emergency, he would have the power to shut down fossil fuel projects without congressional approval. There was also new legislation on the topic which could have influenced the level of gas production. And there's also plenty of stuff he did to make the situation worse, such as supporting a tar sands oil pipeline through indigenous lands.
The top comment's position that this level of commitment is woefully insuffient to address the crisis is correct. Environmental concerns have taken a backseat to appeasing oil companies and attempting to keep prices low. The Democrats want to talk out of both sides of their mouth on this, if you're an environmentalist, then Biden's doing everything he can to limit drilling, but if you're more concerned with gas prices, rest assured that they're drilling more than ever. Generally, when politicians do that, the corporate-friendly narrative is the one they'll actually follow through on.
So maybe the right-wing Biden shouldn't have promised with "Period. Period. Period. Period." something the even more right-wing Republicans' judges could strike down.
By that logic literally nothing would ever get done because everything is always opposed by someone.
There's a difference between saying you want to stop something, vs saying that thing is not going to happen "Period. Period. Period. Period." when you end up doing the thing anyway.
If you care about honesty, and in this case if you care about a biosphere in which people are able to live, then it matters.
It's possible to do things, and to be honest.
Historical evidence suggests that radical honesty regarding complex issues is not a winning political strategy.
One of the main reasons democrats lose so much is because they often prefer to take the moral high ground instead of, you know, winning.
Psychology has been weaponized and your faith in the general public to reward honesty is, sadly, misguided. We know this. It's been proven out over and over again, in many ways..
So we can stick our heads in the sand, or we can play the game and then govern to the best of our ability after winning.
They don't care.Edit: not American but I still implore everyone to vote Harris
Edit: I'll wait until next month