Actually it's more of a reversal of a reversal (since Manchin blocked his very own bill two weeks ago), but whatever, I'll take it.

Finally, some good fucking news. I can't wait to never hear the name Manchin ever again.

Global warming was a common theme in science fiction in the 1980s. The 1982 movie Blade Runner was typical. So no, the news wasn't broken to Americans by Al Gore. He was just unusually successful in raising alarm. — Tate

Given how polarized US politics was becoming at the time, I'm starting to wonder if Gore being the face of climate change activism in the country made Americans LESS likely to address it. Not that that was his fault, of course (more society's), but we all know how politics ruins literally everything.

Technically they weren't even talking about BBB. He killed that bill because he had problems with it's temporary programs (which were there because he restricted the topline number), and also because it didn't do enough to reverse the Trump tax cuts. The bill Manchin just killed was his very own deficit reduction bill funded by tax increases, which he said was the "best way" to fight inflation. Fast forward several grueling months of bad faith negotiations and then Manchin suddenly "found out" that the tax increases were inflationary and that he was suddenly okay with a bill that consists solely in drug prices and a (temporary) ACA extension instead. At least, he's okay with it now (but given his track record, he'd probably have some last minute "revelation" that drug prices are inflationary or something leaving us with literally nothing).

Now if only American politicians would care, they could try and apply these solutions and save civilization as we know it. That'd be nice. Any moment now.... — Olivier5

According to the senator from West Virginia, whether or not civilization as we know it is saved solely depends on next month's CPI report.

They're also not gonna furiously defend coal either like your last post implied. Like you said, they care about employment, and they're perfectly fine with clean jobs just so long as they have them, which was why they wanted the manufacturers creating new jobs in their coalfields.

The point of labour unions is to defend their membership in collective bargaining with capitalists. It is not to save the human race. A coal miners union will defend the use of coal. There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming. — Olivier5

Not so sure about that. At the very least with regards to the legislation Manchin just killed, it seemed like union workers were pretty excited about the bill, in particular for it's legislation to help the miners transition to new cleaner jobs on the coalfields they used to work on: Coal miners want Joe Manchin to reverse opposition to Build Back Better.

Apparently Manchin was really buddy buddy with the coal miners, or at least trying to be, seeing as he's a coal baron and all. Kind of wonder how they feel about him now that he's shown himself to be playing games for the past year and a half over legislation that would've helped them transition to other jobs. Those coal jobs aren't coming back, and the coal industry in the US is dying, no matter who is in charge of the White House. They seem to understand that but I guess that's just Manchin looking out for his constituents.

We are living through the greatest tragic comedy of our time.

Like I've been saying, the "let's do nothing" crowd continues to say that we should do nothing at all.

I mean good luck with that, but there are a lot of people out there who are dead set on making sure that we don't do anything at all. At first the line was that climate change wasn't happening, so we shouldn't do anything at all. Then they accepted the existence of climate change but now deny that it was manmade, so again, let's do nothing at all. Now it's a combination of "renewables bad", "China should do something first", or "some climate people fly in private jets", all with the implication that we should, you guessed it, not do anything at all.

I mean, it'd be nice if all sides acknowledged the problem and just had differing approaches to solving it. In a world that made sense that would've been the case. I'd love it if both the right and the left had debates over whether we should decarbonize using nuclear or renewables for example. Unfortunately that isn't the world that we live in, and I don't know how much longer we all are gonna live in this world anyways if this is how we're gonna act.

I wish people would stop pretending science will solve everything, which is something other people do, after all, so they have an excuse not to make the necessary sacrifices themselves, which we're all going to have to do. — Benkei

While I don't necessarily think science will solve everything, it's a better option than expecting everyone to suddenly come to a realization that they're destroying the environment and doing the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. We tried the latter for 40 years and that got us nowhere. People just aren't gonna make the necessary sacrifices because it involves them doing something inconvenient. It's why NIMBYism is a thing.

At least technological advances are immune to inconsistency of governments. If renewables and EVs are made more affordable and economically competitive (which fortunately it seems to be getting to in recent years) then it doesn't matter what kind of science denying buffoon the voters decide to elect into office. Businesses will decide to decarbonize of their own accord.

Indeed, the oligarchs know that when the people unite against them they can't win, which is why they try to break people apart whenever they can by sowing discord. In fact, I think that that is part of the reason why today's politics is so divisive.

But the fact that people can be so easily manipulated like this is also part of reason why I said I've lost faith in humanity. The rise of Nazi Germany has shown us all that people can be duped into hating and committing heinous atrocities against one another with just the right amount of persuasion, and the fact that people can just let someone like Hitler come into power terrifies the hell out of me. Hitler may be gone, but what made him so powerful in the first place is still with us, likely leading to the rise of similar figures.

I mean, out of all of the problems humanity is facing right now, it seems like people are more interested in talking about culture war nonsense than anything else, all while the wealthy make off. Some billionaire just bought one of the biggest social media websites out there (well not anymore) and people actually celebrated.

But look: there are 7+ billion pretty much powerless consumers in the world. We tend to blame ourselves for the climate disaster. Maybe we are all complicit, but none of us are guilty of being prime movers in energy production, manufacturing or consumption. We are small cogs in a great wheel, but we do not turn the wheel. We do not grind; we are ground up. — Bitter Crank

Sure you can say we're not the primary cause of alot of our problems, but we aren't entirely blameless. Alot of the corrupt politicians are there because we are duped into voting for them and against our own interests. In addition, the people who do want to do something are successfully demonized into obscurity by the media. We can easily topple over the oligarchs if we actually unite together, but instead we're more interested in fighting amongst ourselves. Alot of people are actually celebrating the death of the US climate bill right now, primarily because the issue has been so politicized.

This is still achievable from an engineering point of view, and even on an apocalyptic landscape with 50-90% of the currently inhabitable earth no longer liveable, humans can likely survive on the poles. There are pathways to full extinction but these seem unlikely edge cases in terms of environmental collapse (such as oxygen depletion or turning the atmosphere toxic). — boethius

Oh I have no doubt that humans will survive this in some form. They will start taking climate change seriously when it becomes an immediate concern (one can argue that it really is in some cases). Unfortunately it'd be too late in large part to stop the damage. In addition the failure to act will open up a whole host of other issues on which society will divide itself such as fights over natural resources, migration, and more pandemics (and judging by the way COVID was handled, it's not looking very good).

It's safe to say that this year has pretty much made me lose faith in humanity altogether. With all the recent events going on now, it's hard to be optimistic. Human nature is just inherently flawed and we probably deserve whatever is gonna come our way.

Wow, I was just about to make a joke about how the right was gonna blame wind energy again for failing in the heat instead of the cold. Now I just feel unoriginal.

We will need now to be relying now on the US, China and India, Russia Brazil et. al. to lead the way in environmental policies. — boethius

Well Russia isn't exactly keen on stopping climate change (in large part due to it's reliance on it's gas), Brazil is currently run by a man who seems fine with letting the Amazon burn (at least hopefully until October), China is the world's biggest emitter currently, India isn't really that far off from China, and the US... well enough has already been said about that.

Pretty dark times indeed. Do you see any possible solution to this mess or has humanity royally screwed itself over for the foreseeable future?

The US just overwhelmingly endorsed $40 billion in spending for Ukraine (I suppose inflation didn't matter there) and the budget for that war in the end of it all will probably dwarf the costs of this bill, so you're not wrong on that one.

Well on the bright side Europe is probably gonna be forced to taking the transition more seriously this time now that they are effectively at war with Russia.

In hindsight, about ten years from now, this will be recognised as one of those watershed moments when the battle was lost. — Wayfarer

It sucks but it really wasn't that much money last I checked. $300 billion over 10 years is like 15% the cost of Afghanistan. The US spends twice that much a year annually on the military.

Sure but there is only so much that can be done the local level. In spite of being the world's biggest emitter the Chinese have invested more in renewables than any other country by far, and that will likely continue as they wish to dominate the world economy. As an authoritarian government they can pretty much allocate as many resources as they want towards this end.

Meanwhile the US is barely capable of operating either because of corruption or tribalism. Simply put, they're incapable of meeting the moment.

And there goes the next 10+ more years of inaction. Combined with the 30-40 years of courts acting against any action whatsoever. — Xtrix

And China along with Europe will most definitely overtake the US in the green tech revolution since the US is incapable of getting it's act together on just about anything.

Leaves little option but to unionize workplaces and start striking, and shift to the state and local level. — Xtrix

Well, might as well leave this here, since I don't want to end this on a down note:

Just another reason why the US shouldn't be the leader of the free world. And hopefully they won't be, as other countries start to realize how broken of a nation it's become.

Poor(er) countries have larger populations, oui monsieur/mademoiselle? — Agent Smith

That's too vague to really tell us anything. Given the specific points mentioned, I think it would all net out in the end (though thinking about it more, climate change would probably increase migration from poorer nations resulting in a net increase of people in places like the US and be a new issue for the country to divide itself on in the future I'm sure).

With Roe vs. Wade squashed, we should expect a population explosion in the US in the coming few decades. — Agent Smith

Between the defunding of social security, healthcare, daily mass shootings, and uncontrolled climate change (all Republican priorities), I kind of doubt that.

I was referring more to the legislative process, which especially holds true for the current makeup of congress.

If anything happens it’ll be because real people are organizing on the ground and building structures there. This may be yet another catalyst, but I wouldn’t put money on it. — Xtrix

We'll see, but there does seem to be an growing appetite for it among the Democrat base. Of course, all it takes is for a few bad actors to ruin the whole thing and it apparently doesn't cost alot for someone to sell out like Sinema did, but one could always hope.

Goes to show how important the 2014 and 2016 elections really were. We’ll be living with the consequences for the next 30 years. — Xtrix

Hopefully less than that if the Dems can finally get their act together and gut the filibuster. Obviously they won't be able to do it this cycle, but given the growing support for it in the party perhaps that may change the next time they come into power. Honestly it's hard for me to see American politics being salvaged any other way at this point.

Honestly I'm more concerned about the SCOTUS's upcoming ruling on the West Virginia v. EPA case which could seriously hinder the US's attempts to regulate greenhouse gases.

And speaking of West Virginia, the senator from that state is still holding up climate legislation in the senate until he feels like passing it.

Indeed, Manchin is pretty much a Republican. That’s well known. Its West Virginia. Not sure what Sinemas deal is either but Arizona is not known as a bastion for liberal politics either. Mainly libertarian republicans. — schopenhauer1

To be fair, Manchin at the very least supported reversing the Trump tax cuts (or at least that was his public statement). Sinema opposed those same tax cuts back in 2017 but then reversed course suddenly without explaining why. I mean, I think we can probably all guess as to why, but it is quite baffling.

Filibuster. You need 60% not 51% to do anything at all. — schopenhauer1

The Dems can get rid of the filibuster on a party line basis, but the senators from Arizona and West Virginia thought it more important that congress remain an impotent body.

And before anyone says that this will give Republicans free rein to pass whatever aspects of their agenda they want when they get into power, then I very much welcome them to try and do so and face the political consequences. Better for them to try to gut abortion access in the public eye than to try and play backroom games with the SCOTUS.

It's been 6 years since Trump was elected. If you still can't "make sense" of why the GOP backs him after 6 years - when 74 million people can - then you, specifically you, are stupider than every Trump voter in existence. — Streetlight

It's not that the Democrats in power can't make sense of the reason why Trump came into power, it's that they don't like the implications of the answer. Better to think that they're not the problem and that they don't need to change then to go through the trouble of stirring up the status quo.

Laws have been passed and presidents elected in the US with less popular support. — Benkei

Cause that's the way that things are designed in the US. It's the policies with broad support that are usually the most difficult to pass.

Honestly I don't disagree. The firearm obsession in the US has gotten to the point where I personally avoid engaging the issue for the most part, knowing the sorts of kneejerk defensive reactions it will provoke from some people. Of course that doesn't mean I'll just sit by while others like Agent Smith attempt to mischaracterize what the "real problem" is, which was why I felt like responding.

Or maybe the US should ask the other countries to the left which seem to have it all figured out.

It is unfortunate that cancer did not kill justice Ginsburg earlier than it did. — Streetlight

Or alternatively she could've just vacated her position, being in her 80s and having survived cancer multiple times. It was arrogant of her to not consider the greater good which is ironic for a justice.

I suppose she isn't the only person in power who feels like staying well beyond their prime. The average age of US congress is around 60 and the past two presidents have been over 75. Though in that case I don't blame them entirely since the voters still decided to keep them in anyways, but for Ginsburg that was all her.

Notice that now Russia is de facto quite attached to China. If Russia can't sell the gas and oil to Western Europe, where can Putin sell it? Yet China isn't a pariah state, it hasn't invaded Taiwan, so it has room to move. All this is an advantage to China. — ssu

Yep, Russia is gonna become completely reliant on China now if it doesn't want to collapse, just like North Korea. That's really the best possible outcome for them in all of this and it's not even that great since China would have all the leverage in such a relationship. I mean sure oil and gas prices are at an all time high right now, but if you can only sell it to one customer then China can probably dictate whatever price they want.

In an odd twist of fate, this could end up pushing China away from coal just as much as it could push Europe away from natural gas and into renewables, which would be a welcome development.

A new cold war. Will it turn hot? According to Murphy's law everything that can go wrong will go wrong, no matter how cool played. It can always turn hot. Oh what save nuclear weapons keep the world! — EugeneW

Looks more like Russia is going the way of North Korea so this isn't gonna be the US vs. the USSR part 2. Hell at this point a lot of former Soviet states probably want nothing to do with Russia (Ukraine obviously included).

Not that I don't think a new Cold War is happening since it is with China, but that's already been going on for a while now.

I hope starting this war will be the start of the downfall of Putin. — ssu

This is probably gonna be the start of the downfall of Russia overall if I'm being frank. No matter how you look at it, the long-term outlook of this adventure for the country does not look good. Makes it all the more surprising that Putin went and did it anyways, but I guess his dreams about reviving the Soviet Union outweighed all of that.

Again, it is not I who seeks to restrict the use of the word "change" to temporal events. It is not I who disregards ordinary use. — Banno

It seems like objecting to change as being temporal is precisely disregarding ordinary use, but hey what do I know.

So much for national politics. Time to get back to the grassroots level anyway. We're probably long out of time, in terms of the climate disaster that's already happening and will inevitably become worse, if not destroy the human species altogether, but there's little else we can do at this point. — Xtrix

Honestly I have more faith that Elon Musk will come in and save the day and I wish I were joking.

I think the human race will adapt. But it won't be pretty. — jgill

And I'm sure that politicians like Joe Manchin will be there to block any such efforts when that happens.

Yep. Turns out Manchin never wanted anything in the first place if he's gonna close the door on even talks about a bill which meets his remaining demands. He slow walked this for 6 months, while making increasingly more ridiculous demands that were all met, just to come out and kill the bill anyways.

Really makes me question the point of the Dems winning the Georgia runoffs if what we're gonna get from all this was a bipartisan bill that could've passed anyways.