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.
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.