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 wasĀ big student loan reformsĀ and aĀ massive improvement in how public lands are managed, then this week we hadĀ better pay and working conditionsĀ for working Americans,Ā minimum staffing ratiosĀ for nursing homes, and evenĀ improved service on airlines.

Thatā€™s not only because itā€™s an election year, though Joe & Kamala certainly do like to point out that where the Other Guy rages (andĀ wants to raise inflation!) theyā€™ve been busy making Americansā€™ lives better. But the bigger reason is that the administration wants to get new rules finalized prior to May, toĀ keep them from being tossed out in the next CongressĀ via the Congressional Review Act, which Donald Trump and his cronies used to reverse a bunch of Barack Obamaā€™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,Ā coal generated only 16 percentĀ of electric power, a new record low. In addition to the emissions rule,Ā three other final rulesĀ alsoĀ impose strict new limits on mercury, coal ash, and pollution of wastewater,Ā 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 IRAā€™s hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives, carbon-free power generation, including battery storage,Ā already beats the cost of building new gas plants.Ā 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.

  • Tinidril
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    7 months ago

    No one is lecturing Progressives. People are lecturing Leftists.

    Leftists range from progressives to communists, the vast majority of which are progressive in the US. You are trying to draw a very fine line here between two groups that almost completely overlap. In any case, you are wrong about nobody lecturing progressives.

    Leftists have the numbers to give Republicans the win

    Not if you exclude those that identify as progressives. If you include progressives, then the lie becomes the idea that leftists donā€™t show up. You keep making that assertion, and itā€™s absolute fiction. There is no evidence whatsoever that a significant portion of those politically engaged enough to identify as leftists donā€™t show up for Democrats. What happens is that when the establishment fails to work with and reach out to progressives, they also fail to reach the fed-up Americans who have checked out of politics completely. Leftist/progressive policies are what drive engagement with many Americans who donā€™t identify as leftists.

    But leftists donā€™t have the numbers to win primaries or dictate policy positions without playing a game of brinksmanship.

    Is this supposed to be an argument against leftists using brinkmanship? ā€œItā€™s your only weapon so you better not use it.ā€ I think your framing is nonsense, of course, but taken at face value it doesnā€™t really make the case you want it to. Also, the biggest factor hurting progressives is the myth that they canā€™t win in the general. Exit polls were crystal clear that Democratic voters favored Sanders on policy, but thought he couldnā€™t beat Trump. Polling on Biden vs Trump and Sanders vs Trump was nearly identical BTW, but you would never know that from the media coverage. Incidentally, Iā€™m wondering if you are aware of how AOC unexpectedly beat Pelosiā€™s protege. She didnā€™t focus on moderates, she focused on unlikely voters. Leftist policies are the key to grassroots outreach to disaffected (non)voters.

    People are unbelievably, irredeemable stupid. See ā€œAffordable Care Actā€ vs ā€œObamacareā€.

    The ā€œpeopleā€ you are talking about are the ones buried in the right wing media bubble. There is less than a 10% swing in approval ratings for Obamacare and the ACA.

    See ā€œI dunno why, I just donā€™t like the vibes of Hillary/Warren/Harrisā€.

    Iā€™m personally not big on the ā€œVibesā€ of Hillary/Warren/Harris either, and Iā€™m guessing that indicates Iā€™m sexist or something? Warren at least has a leftist bent, even if she is cynically an establishment tool. Iā€™ll take AOC/Porter/Omar please.

    See ā€œdespite all the stats saying otherwise, I believe weā€™re in the middle of a CRIME EPIDEMICā€.

    You might be a bit behind on the news, but itā€™s recently surfaced that there were some major changes in how the FBI collects crime statistics that easily account for most of the drop Biden has been bragging on. Still, you are right that there is no evidence of a real ā€œCRIME EPIDEMICā€ nationally. Still, we are not talking about people that are likely to vote for Democrats here.

    Moderate Republicans are generally okay with extreme positions as long as their core demands are met.

    There is no such thing as a moderate Republican. All the worst things done by the first Trump administration were driven by and perfectly consistent with ā€œmoderateā€ Republican policies and rhetoric. Even January 6 was just the next logical step in Republican election rigging. Aside from the spectacle, it wasnā€™t much different than the Supreme Court putting W in office.