Biden-Harris Administration Announces Nearly $430 Million to Accelerate Domestic Clean Energy Manufacturing in Former Coal Communities
Biden-Harris Administration Announces Nearly $430 Million to Accelerate Domestic Clean Energy Manufacturing in Former Coal Communities
You're viewing part of a thread.
Yes, again, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Very few people here want the money spent on Israel.
That doesn't mean acting like everything else that the Biden administration does is worthless because of it. It is possible to have massive criticisms of a political administration and acknowledge when they do something good.
Domestic clean energy manufacturing is a good thing. Bringing jobs to former coal communities that are depressed communities due to the coal no longer being mined is a good thing. Climate mitigation is a good thing. This helps with all of those things.
Pretending everything is awful because one thing is awful achieves nothing. Neither does making every Biden or Harris thread into a complaint about the U.S. aiding Israel. Who exactly do you think you're going to convince here? How does this constant complaining help Palestinians?
My only point was to highlight how the Biden administration has it's priorities backwards i.e. millions for climate, billions for Israel.
I'm venting frustration. That's all the internet is good for anyway. Complaining doesn't matter, your arguing doesn't matter, nothing we post matters.
You'll be happy to hear that Biden had invested billions into climate change.
https://www.wri.org/insights/biden-administration-tracking-climate-action-progress
Also
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation, asserts that:
If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.
You:
I only said we should demand more and highlighted the Biden-Harris administration's fucked up priorities. I'm not asking for a pony, I'm asking that we stop burning fossil fuels to support a genocidal apartheid state. It's not an unreasonable expectation!
You misinterpreted what I said.
If we stopped supporting Israel, we'd stop burning the fuel we use to support them. Our support for Israel requires burning fossil fuel. We should stop doing that.
I understand the fallacy, thanks.
Did I say "Ignore A" though? I just meant to highlight the contradiction.
Also, your link clearly says:
At COP28, the Biden administration pledged $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund but it is up to Congress to appropriate the funding. In the past two fiscal year budgets, Congress has appropriated only $1 billion annually for climate finance. While the U.S. Development Finance Corporation may be able to increase the level of funds mobilized, it will still not come close to the $11.4 billion mark. In addition, it’s not clear whether the U.S. can meet the $3 billion in funding for adaptation as part of a global pledge by developed countries to collectively double their adaptation finance by 2025.
Looks like we're not getting A. But! If we stopped wasting money burning fuel for Israel, we could meet those goals!
That's one part of the article, yes. And your last claim requires a citation.
But! If we stopped wasting money burning fuel for Israel, we could meet those goals!
Again, I understand the fallacy. I trust you will amend your previous statements? "Billions for climate change"?
Again.
If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
The problem currently being discussed isn’t that important at all.
I. Didn't. Say. This.
I haven't said that. I am not saying that. I don't know why you keep fucking accusing me of saying it.
I trust you will amend your previous statements? “Billions for climate change”?
Sure sounds like there's only one billion per year. Billion.
So, sure. Let's say 1 billion per year for climate change. Compare that to 17.9 billion in the past year for Israel.
The priorities are fucked. That doesn't mean I'm using the “not as bad as” fallacy, that means I'm highlighting how we could be spending a whole hell of a lot more on climate change. I just want the money spent on Israel to be spent on climate instead.
I understand the fallacy and what you said. The article seems to report more than 17.9 billion in total. Now it sounds like the goal posts are shifting.
Thanks for the discussion.
You asked me to amend what I said.
I did, and because I did, you accuse me of moving goal posts. What??
I hate this website.
Your original complaint (spending more on Israel than climate change) was at least an order of magnitude or two off from what is actually going on, and the "millions" part was easily disproven. Confronted with that, your new complaint (to the same ends) is now the time span under which these sums are dedicated, no longer the actual amount, despite that being satisfied now. I know what that sounds like.
Did you find a source that proves we could meet our climate goals if we didn't fund Israel?
That’s all the internet is good for anyway.
What an extremely narrow way of looking at a vast network of computers containing most of the world's knowledge. Do you mean to say you've never used the internet to enlighten yourself in any way? Read a scanned-in book? Watch a digitized documentary or lecture? Nothing?
I spend hours poring over the amazing things available on the Internet Archive. So much media that you can learn from!
Substance farmers in third world countries even find uses for the Internet- all kinds of farming tips. There was an article I read some years ago about a village in sub-Saharan Africa where they basically had one guy who had internet access and farmers were constantly coming to him to get farming advice.
But you think the only thing that the internet is good for is venting your frustrations?
Honestly, that statement makes me sad for you.
I misspoke.
I was only talking about posting. Obviously the internet is far bigger than just the comments section.
I think that's still a very narrow view of things. I have made lifelong friends on internet forums. I went to a meetup in August of this year and had the time of my life with the people I finally got to meet face-to-face. I can honestly that it was one of the most enjoyable three days of my life and I can't wait until we do it again next year. I also have friends in other countries that I met on forums who I've been talking to privately for years now.
And, of course, you can learn things from forums too. There's plenty of things people post on Lemmy that contain interesting information. Communities like c/science has lots of interesting and informative posts.
It was enjoyable because you got to meet them face-to-face. Without that face-to-face interaction, it's all hollow. If the internet facilitates a meet up then that's great, but the comments section itself is a pale comparison to real human interaction. That's why I don't believe arguing on the internet has any value.
Also, forums are not comments sections. That's a different medium. Forum topics can be bumped in perpetuity, forum posters are identifiable by an avatar and a tagline and all sorts of stuff, but a comments section is ephemeral by its very nature. We're two user names briefly interacting for a while and then that's it. This doesn't matter.
No, it was enjoyable long before that. Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I find enjoyable.
And I thought we were talking about Lemmy here. Lemmy is a discussion forum.
Enjoyable, but hollow. Like junk food.
Lemmy is a link aggregator with a comments section for every link. A forum isn't built around links, it's built around community. On a forum, our discussion here would bump the thread up to the top of the forum topic every time we post. Forums are built for long term discussions over months and years, rather than ephemeral topics that fade off the front page in a day or two.
They're different mediums.
No. Not hollow.
Just because you haven't developed any real friendships with people online says a lot more about you than anyone else.
People used to have friendships solely through letters. People who never met and yet thought of each other fondly and shared their lives with each other.
There's many collections of these published over the years. I recommend the book 84 Charing Cross Road about a very close friendship that developed between a book lover in New York and a bookseller in London who never met in their lifetimes.
Not in comments sections. IRC is better for that.
Once again, you do not get to tell me about my friendships or how meaningful they are.
Comment sections are no different than sending letters. My friendships with people I met on forums are no different than the relationship between Helene Hanff and Frank Doel except their correspondence was far slower and there was far less of it.
I get that you can't make such friends. It's bizarre to me that you think this is a universal thing even when you're directly being told it isn't.