What Biden has done is to cut the issuance of drilling leases to the minimum required by law, pass the Inflation Reduction Act, enact a regulation to force vehicle electrification, and similarly force fossil fuels out of most power plants.

What Biden has not done: stop issuing drilling permits or impose export restrictions on fossil fuels. The former has some serious limits because of how the courts treat the right to drill as a property right once you hold a drilling lease, and the latter is simply untested.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s stopping something trump tried to do from happening…

      It’s good, but we need to do a hell of a lot more than just sometimes stop things from getting worse.

      That’s pretty much the entire reason people don’t like moderates. Why wait decades to fix something instead of fixing stuff now?

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The graph from OPs link shows a significant drop off under Obama, a steep rise under trump, and then another drop off under Biden. Kind of follows the Dem-Rep seesaw I’ve been experience for decades. It’s depressing that the Dems can’t do more, but the reality is they are also funded by the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry, Dems can barely hold onto majorities as it is, and voters vote for these morally weak candidates over and over. I’m really at a fuck-this-place, and fuck-all-these-people stage. The only thing I really regret is bringing a kid into this world. Just very selfish and narcissistic on my behalf.

        • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m really at a fuck-this-place, and fuck-all-these-people stage. The only thing I really regret is bringing a kid into this world. Just very selfish and narcissistic on my behalf.

          Can’t say I’ve ever related to a statement this hard for a while. It’s all just a shitshow and we seem to be at the “fuck it, let’s ramp this up to 11” stage of self-extermination.

          • vivadanang@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s all just a shitshow and we seem to be at the “fuck it, let’s ramp this up to 11” stage of self-extermination.

            meanwhile a third of the people are saying “oh we’ve got time, we just have to convince the people to come together and unify”

            and another third that’s saying “FUCK YOU I HAVE FIREARMS AND WILL ROLL COAL AS MUCH AS I WANT I WILL LITERALLY SPEW OIL! I AM ANGRY ALL THE TIME BECAUSE OF THE PAINT CHIPS AND LEADED FUEL EXPOSURE OF MY YOUTH AND ZERO HEALTHCARE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WILL PUNISH EACH AND EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING WITH MY EFFLUENCE.”

            We’re stuck between kumbaya unity types and petrofascists meanwhile the world is COOKING.

            Meanwhile the Shell, Exxon & BP execs are just happy no one’s coming after them yet.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            and we seem to be at the “fuck it, let’s ramp this up to 11” stage of self-extermination.

            We do?

            Here in the United States the amount of electricity generated by coal burning has dropped by 50% in the last 20 years and in that same time frame renewable energy has more than doubled. Greenhouse Gas emissions per capita were lower in 2020 than they were in 2000 and we now generate more energy from renewables than we do from coal.

            https://usafacts.org/topics/energy/

            We can argue that the changeover to renewables isn’t happening fast enough but “fuck it, let’s ramp this up to 11” isn’t happening at all, it’s actually quite the opposite.

            • vivadanang@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              one part of the population is trying desperately to change the course, the other is rolling coal, opening new wells, spewing gigatons of methane from their fracking operations and standing around with their thumbs up their asses wondering why it’s so damned hot now that a dem is in office.

              the people trying to change the course won’t make a difference once the bus has gone off the cliffside mate.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why wait decades to fix something instead of fixing stuff now?

        The United States is not a Command Economy and The President is not a Dictator. The US via private enterprise is dumping ever larger sums into renewable energy production and is definitely making progress. It’s not happening fast enough but it IS happening.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Moderates when something happens:

          We did this!

          Moderates when nothing happens:

          Don’t you know how the government works? We can’t do anything

          No one is demanding he succeed, we’re just asking that they fucking try.

          Bring stuff up for a vote and let people who see how their reps represent them.

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Republicans control the House of Representatives. Nothing can happen right now in the direction that we need as a result because zero of them will vote for it.

            The Inflation Reduction Act barely passed with Vice President Kamala Harris as a tiebreaking vote in the Senate because it was structured to fit within the budget reconciliation rules and therefore not subject to filibuster.

            It’s going to take a lot more Democrats in both the House and Senate before a moderate President can pass climate legislation. Even then, it’ll need to survive a court that’s hostile to the idea.

            • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s really the fundamental issue, isn’t it? There is absolutely no democratic processes on the federal level. We get to pull a lever once every two years, and that is supposed to be a meaningful democratic participatory process.

                • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t think that organizing within a private corporate party apparatus counts as participating in the democratic process more generally. Especially one that has admitted it has no obligation to follow its own rules. There needs to be a direct democratic process on a federal level. The majority of the population, regardless of party affiliation, support measures such as universal healthcare, but our process doesn’t empower collective change, rather it empowers minority interests over the majority, as evidenced by the legislation pushed and policy positions held by the federal government. Even good representatives can’t do anything because they’re hamstrung by an inherently partisan political process. Let the people speak. Where they are allowed to speak, we have seen big changes, (legalization of cannabis, ending of qualified immunity, bail reform, etc), but where the only avenue for change is through elected office, we have stagnated for decades behind the rest of the developed world.

            • vivadanang@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nope, they could force it to a floor vote then contrast the dem’s votes to the rethuglican vote then compare the lobbying $ that goes to each.

              Put it to a vote then shame them. THE WORLD IS COOKING.

              • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                They can’t actually force a floor vote in the House because the Speaker there controls the schedule.

      • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s politically unpopular to do what need to be done. Moderate policies are popular policies. And moderate policies will move left the more people vote and the more old gens die.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s politically unpopular to do what need to be done

          No, a majority of voters want action on climate change, unfortunately a majority of elected representatives don’t, because most get fossil fuels donations to their campaigns.

          Moderate policies are popular policies.

          Not as popular as progressive policies…

          That’s kind of the whole point of American neoliberalism… alienate the left because “what are they going to do, vote R?”

          Then move slightly to the right in a perpetual misguided attempt to steal the conservatives from republicans.

          We’ve been trying that for 30 years now. The only result has been instead of slow progress, we take 10 steps back when republicans are in control, and moderates demand we worship them on the rare occasions we take five steps forward.

          It’s not working, and that should be pretty obvious to anyone who knows recent American history.

          Fighting extremism with moderation has never worked tho, that should be obvious to everyone.

          • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They want action without any downside. Not taxes. No economic hardship. Just like everyone wants $2 worth of governance for $.50. When polled on individual policies most people are very progressive. When it comes time to pay for all of it they get very picky, and vote for candidates that will do nothing. And that’s the popular outcome currently. It’s the mean of opinion. We aren’t as progressive as we would like to be.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously he couldn’t pass the Build Back Better plan but then the Inflation Reduction Act provides a potentially unlimited amount of incentives/subsidies for green energy.

      Painting him as “just a moderate” on this issue is some centrist level bullshit, OP. He’s clearly giving oil, gas, and military convenient wins so they don’t ruin the world before the next US election. Yes, the oil barons have more political power than a sifnificant amount of voters.

    • cobra89@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Even by your linked article’s admission, that was kind of inconsequential:

      The 2017 GOP tax bill opened a small part of the pristine wildlife refuge for drilling, a measure championed by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican. But it was never developed or drilled – or came close to doing so. Haaland suspended the leases in June 2021, and some major oil companies, including Chevron, canceled their leases in the area the following year.

      However, the 2017 tax law mandates leasing in ANWR, meaning the Biden administration will have to launch a new leasing process and hold another lease sale by the end of 2024, albeit likely with tighter environmental provisions.

      So the companies had the permits for 4 years and never did anything with them, to the point where Chevron cancelled their own leases. And the leases will be auctioned off again next year.

      Meanwhile the Biden administration is granting applications for permits to drill on public and trial lands at a pace faster than the Trump administration at the same point. From the start of their administrations through March 27, Biden approved 7,118 permits and Trump 7,051, The Washington Post reported.

      About the permit approvals, the Bureau of Land Management has said the bureau has taken a “balanced approach to energy development and management of our nation’s public lands.”

      So yeah, while I think Biden is the most progressive president since FDR, his record on oil drilling isn’t so great.

      Edit: fix the order of some quotes.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think that’s ever been in serious doubt; the same simulation mechanisms used to produce climate modeling were used to figure out that nuclear winter is an issue in the first place. It’s just that most people would prefer to address global warming without mass murder.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That doesn’t actually work. Nuclear winter is caused by the stuff which gets mixed up with the blast. Hit Antarctica and all you get is water.

          On top of that, it’s where air descends from the stratosphere, so whatever particulates you do generate probably won’t achive worldwide distribution at significant concentrations

          • Tibert@compuverse.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            All you get is water but it’s not just water.

            Water in the admosphere is an extremely strong (but short lived) greenhouse gas.

            And while it was hit, it could also be irradiated. While a nuclear blast has less radiation impact than a nuclear plant burning, throwing many nuclear bombs in one place may have other impacts. Contaminated water can be assimilated by living things. And while in the body, it can do damage.

            • query@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s also more freshwater in Antarctica than in the rest of the world. Quite a waste, and enough of it to contaminate every source across the planet.

    • spaduf@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is, of course, the possibility of geoengineering with sulfur dioxide. Sort of a nuclear winter without the nuclear. It’s the same mechanism by which nuclear would and volcanoes do cause climate cooling. Not very safe but it may be in our emergency bag of tricks.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wasn’t there a proposal to do something similar by using ships to blast saltwater into the air? All the cloud coverage and reflected sunlight, none of the acid rain.

        • spaduf@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think that’s actually relatively low-risk to do as well (as far as experimental geoengineering goes). A significant portion of the warming in the North Atlantic has been attributed to lack of sulfur emissions due to changes in requirements for container ship fuels. Should be able to get a similar effect with just water with the effects being understood well in advance.

    • Four_lights77@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      As an elementary school teacher, “the hard way” is the overwhelming choice of kids. I don’t think it changes that much when they grow into adults.

  • query@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course. Climate change is happening, and will keep getting worse until all the biggest countries agree to do and actually go through with doing something substantial about it (or to fully isolate the economies of those that refuse). Nuclear war is just an idea.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not exactly. Most references to 1.5C are about the long term average hitting that level, not an individual year.

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Given the trend, it’s a pretty strong indicator we’re there. What is long-term in the context of a change over 10-20 years, that’s reaching a breakaway point?

        You understand that when things are steadily moving in one direction, we’d need to overshoot the difference between the start of the reference period and the 1.5 degree figure by 100%(incorrectly assuming linear change - the reality is more exponential - far worse by the time it shows up)

        For example - for a 1.5C change over 6 years, starting at 0C:

        • Year 0 - real temp 0, average 0

        • Year 3 - real temp 1.5, average 0.75

        • Year 6 - real temp 3, average 1.5

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The year to year variation is much larger than the underlying increase. We could easily see several years with the anomaly under 1.5C before

    • homesnatch@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s something that requires an act of Congress rather than Biden… And with the current House makeup, extremely unlikely.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ok, i’m not american, so thanks. Still, they are supposed to be leaders but are self-centered like children. They should go to kindergarten again, to learn compromise.

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    The next 10 or 20 years? I just read an article that hit it already and will likely do it consistently over the next several years. The next 10-20 will likely few closer to a 3.6°F (2°C) rise.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Year-to-year surface temperatures vary significantly. Look at a graph like this:

      and it’s clear that we could easily have a string of years below this year’s temperature

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        We could but the current El Niño is supposed to be pretty significant. We also have significantly less sulfur oxide being spewed by international shipping which has a large cooling effect on the oceans. It is good that we cut down on that pollution and there are things we can replace it with that will have similar effects and are less damaging but there is currently nothing planned that would essentially replace that coming effect.

        While you are correct that there is a good amount of variability in the temperature, I think it is just as likely that it will be variability the other way.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think I know the one you’re talking about, and the headline is somewhat misleading. This comes with the disclaimer that I don’t want to downplay the severity of any of this, but it’s important to have the right context.

      What’s happened is that we’ve had two months in a row with extreme temperatures. Those alone peak above +1.5C. It had been this high before, back in 2016. However, we’re not going to have an average of +1.5C of extra warming this year, or in the next few years.

      It’s still bad, just not that bad.

  • jaybone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Putin might save us all when he orders some confused kid to turn those keys.

      • Dass93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not bad for the inviroment it’s bad for people. The climate is coming back over time.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      He won’t order it. He knows that the most likely result is that he just nukes Russia, and then gets a retaliatory strike when the world realizes he just tried to nuke someone.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’re still some years from hitting an ongoing sustained average of 1.5°C above what it was in the late 1800s. That’s what people mostly talking about when they say 1.5°C

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        This year will be above 1.5°C. Which means we did reach that.

        What you’re talking about is the average of yearly average temperatures. But it’s not what we’re looking at. We’ve never seen earth average temperature above +1.5. And averages don’t move much. I don’t care if next year will “only” be +1.49…

  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ive seen fuck all investment in solar where I’m at. Id really like to contribute labor to it, but there’s nothing.

    • exohuman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Here in the rural Midwest there is a huge investment in wind turbines. They are everywhere you look. I think what renewable is popular depends on your region.

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are specific areas where nothing is happening. For example, Alberta has a moratorium on renewables in order to benefit the local fossil fuels industry.

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Iowa had the most wind turbines in the US like…before Obama was even president I believe. But I wouldnt know what’s been invested there federally since Biden took over, because I cant find any info on where those investments are going.

    • psyspoop@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where I’m at, we’re actually getting a decent amount of solar, but unfortunately the power district is building the solar fields over some remnant tallgrass prairie, probably since it’s cheaper than buying agricultural or residential land. This sucks since we’ve destroyed 98% of all the tallgrass prairie in the US, which makes it one of the most endangered biomes in the world, which is extra sucky since tallgrass prairie is one the most effective biomes at sequestering carbon, much more than even forests/woodlands.

  • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately, Russia (and SA) complicate the matter. Russia earns based on the price of oil and if the US stops producing it that price goes up along with it. The world still will buy Oil and Europe especially relies on US Oil at the moment as they ween themselves off Russia’s. Oil is the main economic driver of Russia, and you can’t combat that without producing MORE. SA’s also in the mix as they have no real other (major) economic sectors to support their country and they know Oil is going away. All of this plus Climate change leave no good options on the board to choose from at this moment except to promote and support green infrastructure…which Biden has done. It all sucks.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nobody is suggesting that the US suddenly and instantly stop extracting, but that it be phased out in conjunction with getting rid of the need for oil in the first place.

      The Saudi royal family has an alternative at this point, which is to live off their sovereign wealth fund, which owns stocks and bonds outside the country. They are also sitting on several million barrels/day in reserve extraction capacity, and could pretty easily crash oil prices if they felt like it.

  • winterwulf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    And what he is doing to prevent it? Did the US decided to FINALLY SIGN THE FUCKING KYOTO PROTOCOL?