Argh, freaking paywalls piss me off so goddamn much, all the important information gets hidden away and we just get propaganda
Unpopular opinion: Paid-for-by-the-reader journalism is objectively about 10 times better (less propaganda) than subsidized-by-someone-else-in-order-to-produce-a-certain-type-of-story “journalism.” If you don’t like propaganda in your news then paywalls should be your friend and paying for the newspaper should be your solution.
What I’m talking about is Biden’s climate legislation, which authorized all sorts of tax credits and spending, the largest single recipients of which have been oil and gas companies.
What on earth are you talking about? Can you give me more details on what you’re claiming here? Here’s a breakdown of what was in the climate bill. “It’s broken down to include $60bn for a clean energy manufacturing tax credit and $30bn for a production tax credit for wind and solar … Democrats believe the strategy could put the country on a path to cut greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030, and ‘would represent the single biggest climate investment in US history, by far.’”
How much are you saying is going to oil and gas companies in this, under what provision(s)?
I agree that Biden is objectively better for the environment than Trump, but while he’s addressing climate change
Imma stop you right there – isn’t this the opposite of what you said initially? That he was an evil shithead specifically because of the damage he did as regards the climate?
Regarding paid for journalism - I definitely agree that journalists should be compensated for the important work they do, but charging every individual reader is a bad solution to this problem that leaves people without financial means without the information they need to meaningfully participate in our society, and at the end of the day if I have to choose my allegiance is with the global poor over journalists.
However, I don’t think we need to make that choice, and I think instead what we should do is look to non-profit org models that solicit donations from readers with means (e.g. ProPublica, NPR, PBS, etc.). I think that’s better for readers, and it’s better for journalists (like, just look at all the media layoffs and shuttered sites in the last few years for how well for profit models have ended up working out for journos).
What on earth are you talking about?
Same thing as you are, you’re focusing on what the legislation summarily declares those monies are for, I’m focusing on who they’re actually going to. The biggest investors in clean energy are all the same players who were big players in traditional energy (e.g. BP, Exxon, and all the hedge funds and financial institutions that stand behind them). Instead of holding these organizations and individuals accountable in any real way (say, requiring them to make investments in clean energy on their own dime), we’re paying them off in a variety of ways to try to get them to behave better. If that actually moves us to a sustainable system of energy generation that will still be a really bitter pill to swallow, but, given the history of these orgs and individuals lying relentlessly about what they were doing to the climate and what they knew about what they were doing to the climate, I’m also worried that they’re going to take this money and then find legal loopholes that allow them to keep doing what they’re doing, and ten or so years from now all we’ll have to show for this legislation are a bunch of very well written articles nobody will read on why this legislation didn’t end up doing what we hoped it would.
isn’t this the opposite of what you said initially? That he was an evil shithead specifically because of the damage he did as regards the climate?
No, I should have been more clear there. The heads of BP, Exxon, etc. are the evil shitheads who have done damage to the climate for decades and lied about it and really ought to face severe criminal punishment imo. Instead, Biden’s trying to work with those evil shitheads and pay them off instead of holding them accountable. I think that’s cowardly and shortsighted, but (for whatever it’s worth) I also think at the end of the day he’s trying to do the right thing, he’s just going about it the entirely wrong way.
Unpopular opinion: Paid-for-by-the-reader journalism is objectively about 10 times better (less propaganda) than subsidized-by-someone-else-in-order-to-produce-a-certain-type-of-story “journalism.” If you don’t like propaganda in your news then paywalls should be your friend and paying for the newspaper should be your solution.
What on earth are you talking about? Can you give me more details on what you’re claiming here? Here’s a breakdown of what was in the climate bill. “It’s broken down to include $60bn for a clean energy manufacturing tax credit and $30bn for a production tax credit for wind and solar … Democrats believe the strategy could put the country on a path to cut greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030, and ‘would represent the single biggest climate investment in US history, by far.’”
How much are you saying is going to oil and gas companies in this, under what provision(s)?
Imma stop you right there – isn’t this the opposite of what you said initially? That he was an evil shithead specifically because of the damage he did as regards the climate?
Regarding paid for journalism - I definitely agree that journalists should be compensated for the important work they do, but charging every individual reader is a bad solution to this problem that leaves people without financial means without the information they need to meaningfully participate in our society, and at the end of the day if I have to choose my allegiance is with the global poor over journalists.
However, I don’t think we need to make that choice, and I think instead what we should do is look to non-profit org models that solicit donations from readers with means (e.g. ProPublica, NPR, PBS, etc.). I think that’s better for readers, and it’s better for journalists (like, just look at all the media layoffs and shuttered sites in the last few years for how well for profit models have ended up working out for journos).
Same thing as you are, you’re focusing on what the legislation summarily declares those monies are for, I’m focusing on who they’re actually going to. The biggest investors in clean energy are all the same players who were big players in traditional energy (e.g. BP, Exxon, and all the hedge funds and financial institutions that stand behind them). Instead of holding these organizations and individuals accountable in any real way (say, requiring them to make investments in clean energy on their own dime), we’re paying them off in a variety of ways to try to get them to behave better. If that actually moves us to a sustainable system of energy generation that will still be a really bitter pill to swallow, but, given the history of these orgs and individuals lying relentlessly about what they were doing to the climate and what they knew about what they were doing to the climate, I’m also worried that they’re going to take this money and then find legal loopholes that allow them to keep doing what they’re doing, and ten or so years from now all we’ll have to show for this legislation are a bunch of very well written articles nobody will read on why this legislation didn’t end up doing what we hoped it would.
No, I should have been more clear there. The heads of BP, Exxon, etc. are the evil shitheads who have done damage to the climate for decades and lied about it and really ought to face severe criminal punishment imo. Instead, Biden’s trying to work with those evil shitheads and pay them off instead of holding them accountable. I think that’s cowardly and shortsighted, but (for whatever it’s worth) I also think at the end of the day he’s trying to do the right thing, he’s just going about it the entirely wrong way.
How much money are you saying is going to oil and gas companies in this, under what specific provision(s)? Like as a number.