President Biden thread

Published

Wow.  No one has started such a thread yet?

After promising that most K-8 students would be in schools in the first 100 days,  apparently Joe is afraid to lead on this and has drastically scaled back that goal.

Instead, we're shooting for about half to go to school at least one day a week,  by the end of April.

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2021-02-09/bidens-goal-for-school-reopenings-suddenly-became-more-attainable

 

Specializes in Hospice.
heron said:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2023/03/14/the-importance-of-measuring-the-fiscal-and-economic-costs-of-climate-change/

Perhaps, when the corporate parasites get their export permits, they could use the profits from those exports, along with higher energy prices in the US, to offset that $165 billion bill from 2022. Once they get that taken care of, they can pick up the tab for the hottest year ever recorded: 2023.

 

Had to walk away from the laptop.

My previous post implies that I think the permits should be denied. I do not.

I understand that we're keeping up with current international commitments. That's good. Our reputation for unreliability can use the help. It also gives us a little time to think things through.

Meanwhile, there's more than a little cost-shifting going on. Are the profits - and geopolitical brownie points - going to be worth the cost of cleaning up the mess?

Extreme weather and environmental degradation >> unstable food supply >> malnourished population >> social and political breakdown >> migration >> pissed off Texans. You get the idea.

War is expensive.

So is energy. I'm not opposed to selling surplus, or paying fair money for my energy use. But consider the Irish Potato Famine.

The potato blight was not the sole cause of the famine. Ireland actually produced plenty of food to feed its own population. Almost all of it was exported to England because that was more profitable for the landowners. The blight wiped out the only crop the Irish had left to live on, resulting in famine.

So how is increasing oil exports going to affect domestic prices for natural gas? I don't feature paying top dollar for the privilege of suffering heatstroke. (Or hypothermia, for that matter. I live in a mile-high desert.)

LNG isn't exactly innocuous, either. Gas companies' record of responsible handling of their products is less than pristine. If you think oil spills are bad! Who pays when the inevitable accident happens?

Definitely not something to be rushed if we don't have to. I remember Enron.

heron said:

Had to walk away from the laptop.

My previous post implies that I think the permits should be denied. I do not.

I understand that we're keeping up with current international commitments. That's good. Our reputation for unreliability can use the help. It also gives us a little time to think things through.

Meanwhile, there's more than a little cost-shifting going on. Are the profits - and geopolitical brownie points - going to be worth the cost of cleaning up the mess?

Extreme weather and environmental degradation >> unstable food supply >> malnourished population >> social and political breakdown >> migration >> pissed off Texans. You get the idea.

War is expensive.

So is energy. I'm not opposed to selling surplus, or paying fair money for my energy use. But consider the Irish Potato Famine.

The potato blight was not the sole cause of the famine. Ireland actually produced plenty of food to feed its own population. Almost all of it was exported to England because that was more profitable for the landowners. The blight wiped out the only crop the Irish had left to live on, resulting in famine.

So how is increasing oil exports going to affect domestic prices for natural gas? I don't feature paying top dollar for the privilege of suffering heatstroke. (Or hypothermia, for that matter. I live in a mile-high desert.)

LNG isn't exactly innocuous, either. Gas companies' record of responsible handling of their products is less than pristine. If you think oil spills are bad! Who pays when the inevitable accident happens?

Definitely not something to be rushed if we don't have to. I remember Enron.

You're giving too much credit.  He's made the climate zealots angry, and it's an election year.  He's trying to make it up to them.

" Mr Biden, though, it was all about politics. To stop the war in Ukraine from disrupting energy markets, his administration has overseen a big expansion in domestic fossil-fuel output. As well as being the world's top lng exporter, America continues to be the biggest oil producer. That angers the climate-anxious left wing of Mr Biden's Democratic Party. In announcing the pause, Mr Biden adopted its language. His decision, he said, "sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time". The head of a big environmental group calls it "a big win for progressives in an election year". Bill McKibben, an influential activist behind a campaign to end lng exports, declared that "We all just won...I have a beer in my hand".

Mr McKibben may want to keep that beer on ice. As Joseph Majkut of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank, wryly points out, the impact of the pause on global markets—and thus on global emissions, which is what matters to the climate—will be minimal. Forgone American exports will be offset by fresh supplies from Qatar, Australia and elsewhere. "I think there is an opportunity,” declared Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada's energy minister, on January 30th."

https://www.economist.com/business/2024/02/01/joe-bidens-limits-on-lng-exports-won't-help-the-climate

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:

Pandering to the climate change zealots in a election year.

This action will have ZERO effect on climate change.

It will have more impact than the GOP or Trump plan to combat climate change.  Their actions will, arguably, worsen climate change. 

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
Beerman said:

You're giving too much credit.  He's made the climate zealots angry, and it's an election year.  He's trying to make it up to them.

" Mr Biden, though, it was all about politics. To stop the war in Ukraine from disrupting energy markets, his administration has overseen a big expansion in domestic fossil-fuel output. As well as being the world's top lng exporter, America continues to be the biggest oil producer. That angers the climate-anxious left wing of Mr Biden's Democratic Party. In announcing the pause, Mr Biden adopted its language. His decision, he said, "sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time". The head of a big environmental group calls it "a big win for progressives in an election year". Bill McKibben, an influential activist behind a campaign to end lng exports, declared that "We all just won...I have a beer in my hand".

Mr McKibben may want to keep that beer on ice. As Joseph Majkut of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank, wryly points out, the impact of the pause on global markets—and thus on global emissions, which is what matters to the climate—will be minimal. Forgone American exports will be offset by fresh supplies from Qatar, Australia and elsewhere. "I think there is an opportunity,” declared Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada's energy minister, on January 30th."

https://www.economist.com/business/2024/02/01/joe-bidens-limits-on-lng-exports-won't-help-the-climate

Appeasing the climate "zealots" sounds pretty innocuous compared to doing nothing or the Republican attempts to appease the destructors of government,  the rioters and the religious thugs.

subee said:

Appeasing the climate "zealots" sounds pretty innocuous compared to doing nothing or the Republican attempts to appease the destructors of government,  the rioters and the religious thugs.

Loke the response ftom @toomuchbaloney , you're deflecting.   

Semantics aside, as I said and the opinion piece explains, this decision is only about politics.  Actual effect on climate is meaningless. 

It's actually worse than doing nothing.  It's far more dishonest than Republicans stance on this issue.

Specializes in Hospice.
Beerman said:

You're giving too much credit.  He's made the climate zealots angry, and it's an election year.  He's trying to make it up to them.

" Mr Biden, though, it was all about politics. To stop the war in Ukraine from disrupting energy markets, his administration has overseen a big expansion in domestic fossil-fuel output. As well as being the world's top lng exporter, America continues to be the biggest oil producer. That angers the climate-anxious left wing of Mr Biden's Democratic Party. In announcing the pause, Mr Biden adopted its language. His decision, he said, "sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time". The head of a big environmental group calls it "a big win for progressives in an election year". Bill McKibben, an influential activist behind a campaign to end lng exports, declared that "We all just won...I have a beer in my hand".

Mr McKibben may want to keep that beer on ice. As Joseph Majkut of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank, wryly points out, the impact of the pause on global markets—and thus on global emissions, which is what matters to the climate—will be minimal. Forgone American exports will be offset by fresh supplies from Qatar, Australia and elsewhere. "I think there is an opportunity,” declared Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada's energy minister, on January 30th."

https://www.economist.com/business/2024/02/01/joe-bidens-limits-on-lng-exports-won't-help-the-climate

Don't look over there or you'll call me bad names? Interesting ... 

I never argued that limiting LNG exports would "fix the climate". My point was that I believe it to be prudent to look at the risk/benefit ratio of expansion. Corporate profits and geopolitical gotchas are not the only legitimate goals, here.

My goal is to come up with ways to unwind our dependence on hydrocarbons as an energy source. Frankly I don't care if we get bragging rights and billions of dollars selling natural gas to people who don't necessarily need it.

I'm also highly suspicious when a salesman tries to pressure me into a fast decision. I remember Enron.

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:

Loke the response ftom @toomuchbaloney , you're deflecting.   

Semantics aside, as I said and the opinion piece explains, this decision is only about politics.  Actual effect on climate is meaningless. 

It's actually worse than doing nothing.  It's far more dishonest than Republicans stance on this issue.

In your opinion, based on an opinion.  We could try to discuss the topic, but every attempt is deemed a deflection in response. It would be nice if you could actually put semantics aside. An actual discussion about why a politician might make a political decision in an election year while also trying to close the loop on a campaign stance might happen then. 

Meanwhile, Biden's GOP opponent took dozens and dozens of actions to weaken environmental protections and promises worse. That kind of nonsense makes it easy to choose Biden.  

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
heron said:

Don't look over there or you'll call me bad names? Interesting ... 

I never argued that limiting LNG exports would "fix the climate". My point was that I believe it to be prudent to look at the risk/benefit ratio of expansion. Corporate profits and geopolitical gotchas are not the only legitimate goals, here.

My goal is to come up with ways to unwind our dependence on hydrocarbons as an energy source. Frankly I don't care if we get bragging rights and billions of dollars selling natural gas to people who don't necessarily need it.

I'm also highly suspicious when a salesman tries to pressure me into a fast decision. I remember Enron.

I remember Enron also.  I just checked if Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is streaming  now.  It 's available on several platforms.  It was a.very good movie.

 

Specializes in Hospice.
Beerman said:

Loke the response ftom @toomuchbaloney , you're deflecting.   

Semantics aside, as I said and the opinion piece explains, this decision is only about politics.  Actual effect on climate is meaningless. 

It's actually worse than doing nothing.  It's far more dishonest than Republicans stance on this issue.

That may be true - just not taking the corporate shills' word for it. Besides, climate by itself is not the only environmental concern around the extraction, storage and transportation of natural gas.

Every thing we do has an impact on the environment. It may be good, bad or neutral (which seems to be the claim about expanding exports), but they inevitably happen. What is it that you find so threatening about acknowledging those effects - and their costs - that you have to resort to dismissive name-calling?

Methinks the boy doth protest too much.

heron said:

That may be true - just not taking the corporate shills' word for it. Besides, climate by itself is not the only environmental concern around the extraction, storage and transportation of natural gas.

Every thing we do has an impact on the environment. It may be good, bad or neutral (which seems to be the claim about expanding exports), but they inevitably happen. What is it that you find so threatening about acknowledging those effects - and their costs - that you have to resort to dismissive name-calling?

Methinks the boy doth protest too much.

All those reasons are not why he is pausing the projects.

Projects that have been approved by the DOE are not effected.  The projects that are effected would have yet to go through a approval process anyway of all those things you mentioned, presumably.  He's just pandering to the extremists, in my and many others opinions.  It seems pretty obvious.

Dismissive name calling?  Do you have an example, because I am stumped.

Specializes in Hospice.
subee said:

I remember Enron also.  I just checked if Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is streaming  now.  It 's available on several platforms.  It was a.very good movie.

 

And one of my favorite books, too. Along with Conspiracy of Fools by Kurt Eichenwald.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
heron said:

And one of my favorite books, too. Along with Conspiracy of Fools by Kurt Eichenwald.

Well I'm watching the movie right now. last Summer I reread Den of Theives about the scandals of the 1990's with Ivan Boesky, etc al .  Another favorite was Liar's Poker about the falls of banks in Oklahoma and California over the oil fields of Oklahoma.  Our memories are getting very short now as the scary financial scandals are coming closer together.  Is this a result of a collective lack of consciousness?  At any rate, one of the most dangerous sectors for investing is the oil companies.  They have no constraints against them to screw their investors.  Just now I'm watching the part if the movie where Enron turns off the electricity to  others California.  And yet, aholes are still screaming for less regulations on two sectors that meaning life and death for us; energy companies and lowering the Chinese wall between commercial and investment  bankers.  Grrrrr.

+ Join the Discussion